[Barraketh]

Negative outcome. Some important points that the article here did not emphasize: 1) The Sackler family was not actually a party to this litigation. They came to the table (with most of the settlement money) specifically to get these so called '3rd party releases'. 2) Purdue is basically broke. It's also an LLC. Thus, in order to go after the Sackler family's money, you basically have to claw back money that Purdue paid out to the family over the years. It's not impossible to do, but it requires a whole more litigation, the outcome of which is not at all certain.

Now, 3rd party releases are a genuinely weird thing: a court ruling that a party that's not directly involved in the case is immune from future lawsuits. Partially the reason it went all the way to the supreme court is that there was a circuit split - they were allowed in some circuits, but not others. However, (and this is according to a friend who represented the victims in the settlement), it's really unfortunate that THIS is the case where they get struck down. If the Sacklers walk away from the settlement, it makes the victims getting their payout much less certain, and certainly delays that payout by many years.

[hinkley]

My understanding is that Piercing the Corporate Veil has gotten easier over the years. The more egregious the robber baron class has gotten the less sympathetic the courts have been.

[prepend]

> Thus, in order to go after the Sackler family's money, you basically have to claw back money that Purdue paid out to the family over the years.

Or you can find them personally, directly, criminally liable and their profits the result from a criminal conspiracy.

Personal crimes aren’t protected by the “veil” of LLC, so any assets of the family could be liable, after criminal conviction, for any civil claims from victims.

At least, I think.

[Barraketh]

IANAL, but I don't think this would help the victims (and incidentally, that could have still happened even with the settlement). If there were a criminal lawsuit of the Sacklers, and if that lawsuit was successful, the seized money would just go to the justice department.

The only way the victims actually see any money is through civil litigation.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the seized money would just go to the justice department

The DoJ operates victims’ funds [1][2].

[1] https://ovc.ojp.gov/about/crime-victims-fund

[2] https://www.justice.gov/enrd/environmental-crime-victim-assi...

[RavingGoat]

I would think civil forfeiture could be used to take all their assets if not then the drug dealers in my town need to each form an LLC.

[Barraketh]

Well, I don't think civil forfeiture specifically would work, but like I mentioned above, yes, if the justice department wanted to criminally charge the Sacklers, they could possibly win and get a judgement against some of the money. But then that money doesn't really go to the victims - it's just a way to punish the Sacklers.

The bankruptcy settlement had a bunch of money going to families of the victims, and also to the states for anti-addiction programs, and also some money towards documenting the Purdue wrongdoings, so that the public would have better visibility just HOW this was allowed to happen in the first place

[insane_dreamer]

Are the victims themselves getting anything? I thought it was States that were suing.

[Barraketh]

Well, it's a bankruptcy, so anyone can file a claim. The states have, but so have the victims and their families directly (as a class).