[doublet00th]

I think there's a misunderstanding in what the settlement is about. As part of Purdue's bankruptcy, the Sackler family is voluntarily providing 6 billion dollars to help settle claims opioid victims have brought against Purdue Pharma.

As a condition to provide the 6 billion dollars, the Sackler family has asked the bankruptcy judge to not even allow any new suits against the Sacklers related to the Opioid epidemic. This is something bankruptcy courts do regular for the company Purdue Pharma, but it is irregular when it comes to the Sackler family (this is not the entity going bankrupt!)

This is the issue that went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled that the protection given to the Sackler family is not something that can be given by a bankruptcy judge during the bankruptcy of Purdue Pharma.

Matt Levine has a much better explanation here: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-06-27/purdue...

[Terr_]

To try to illustrate the (bad) principle with a starker hypothetical:

1. Scrooge McDuck owns a thousand different corporations that are restaurants and eateries.

2. A one-taco-stand company is in bankruptcy court, after recklessly inflicting severe food-poisoning on a dozen customers.

3. Scrooge McDuck says: "Out of the goodness of my heart, I will charitably donate $X of my personal funds to help these poor unfortunates... If you give me personal immunity to any lawsuits somehow involving recent food-poisoning problems anywhere."

4. The dozen hospitalized taco-eaters are puzzled but OK with this, since they'll at least get something. The judge shrugs and things move forward.

5. Meanwhile a million other customers of other restaurants see the news on their phones, which they have out because they're stuck on their toilets with raging diarrhea. Plus maybe a few whistleblowers that can't get work anywhere because Scrooge blacklisted them.

6. All of them are justifiably outraged that their rights to seek justice/compensation have been (partly) signed-away in the bankruptcy of some unrelated tiny taco stand case that they didn't--couldn't--participate in.

[shawndrost]

I don't understand why your analogy requires multiple taco trucks. So if I'm missing something please explain.

Otherwise, I find your analogy helpful and illustrative of my confusion. Here is the simplified analogy:

1. Scrooge owns a nasty taco truck that makes everyone sick. He runs to the bahamas and is gone. 2. A dozen customers take it to bankruptcy court and get ownership of the taco truck and Scrooge's "charitable" donation, but Scrooge would get immunity, and so would the taco truck. 3. Meanwhile, the victims that weren't in the settlement are outraged that Scrooge might be immune. Not everyone was a part of the first suit -- plus, the taco truck is still selling tacos, and people are still getting sick!

This illustrates my confusion.

To me it seems like we should shut down the taco truck, and not give it immunity. I'm kind of a utilitarian and I don't much care about Scrooge, though I wish I could take his money away and put him in jail.

But it seems like most of the people who are mad about the diarrhea are not talking about the taco truck's continued operations and immunity??? And they are chiefly concerned about Scrooge, who is no longer involved with the taco truck??? What gives?

[Terr_]

> multiple taco trucks

Trucks? The lawsuit involves one discrete corporation, and its small size is underscored by how it's just one stand/kiosk. (I suppose it could be mobile, but that's not what I was thinking of.)

However same owner/investor happens to be involved in many un-enumerated companies, some of which might easily be guilty of the same problems, including ones that would normally "pierce the corporate veil" and affect investors directly.

> but Scrooge would get immunity, and so would the taco truck.

The taco-stand corporation isn't immune, it's going bankrupt paying judgements. CEO/Owner Scrooge is coming in from the sidelines to preempt a personal lawsuit, and also trying to get someone in authority to (wrongly) grant him immunity from other potential lawsuits from other claimants.

> plus, the taco truck is still selling tacos

Oh, I think I see: No, this isn't a duck-ified version of the entire national controversy, I'm just trying to illustrate the how an "immunity" grant can be bogus.

In other words, the taco-stand is not a 1:1 analogy placeholder for Purdue Pharma, you can assume it's been bankrupted into Chapter 7 and broken up and sold off.

[brookst]

+1 for Levine's explanation. As usual he is insightful, great at communicating a complex topic, and just fun to read.

[ProjectArcturis]

Matt Levine is a treasure. He is tied only with Derek Lowe for being a fantastic writer who makes complex topics understandable, interesting, and enjoyable.

[monetus]

https://archive.ph/Co2A1

[shawndrost]

My question is not about the settlement; it's a question about moral judgements people have around Sacklers/Purdue, including judgements I see on this comment page. I already understand the mechanical details you've explained and they don't answer my question.

[doctorpangloss]

> Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely?

Oxycodone is routinely and safely administered right now, to tens of thousands of people, every day. But this is kind of like, an FDA question, no?

[EncomLab]

Which is why going after the Sackler's is about politics and not about the law.

[jewayne]

Or maybe it's about the horrible crimes against humanity committed by the Sacklers?

[itsdrewmiller]

You said:

>I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-is. Which is, I think, the conclusion from this settlement. If this is you, can you help me understand? Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely?

As GP noted, that is not the conclusion of the settlement - not even close. If you want to better understand comments on this page, perhaps reply to them asking for clarity?

[ocdtrekkie]

This is an excellent ELI5 explainer, thanks.