From the article:
The deal was hailed by both the company and the plaintiffs’ lawyers as a victory for victims, but the news agency’s examination shows how the long, grinding bankruptcy wound up creating daunting hurdles for many trying to qualify for compensation.
If the plaintiffs’ lawyers actually saw this as a victory, it reminds me of the stuff that Robert Billot talks about in Exposure. He, at some point, got a reasonable settlement and worked out a plan that worked well for the company and well for the victims (this particular case, I believe, was about chemical exposure in a West Virginia City that had a DuPont plant). He thought it was a win-win deal and thought that things are more-or-less over now. They fought the big fight, but now we’re settled and done. Boy was he wrong. Throughout the settlement process and in the middle of settlement DuPont was trying to screw everything up.
Victims and their lawyers say Purdue and its Sackler family owners should be held broadly responsible for igniting an opioid epidemic through aggressive and misleading marketing that drove widespread use of prescription painkillers, including generics, with many patients later turning to illegal drugs.
i saw a comment on a John Oliver video that was like: sell marijuana, get twenty years, create an opioid epidemic and get a slap on the wrist. I wonder what the (presumably) self-serving justifications are in legal circles these things. i know there are a number of lawyers who acknowledge the system is bad, but what about for those who thinks its kinda good. idk.
Purdue is scheduled to be sentenced on April 28. The judge overseeing the criminal case delayed sentencing by a week to allow victims who wanted to speak about Purdue’s conduct to participate in person.
What happens when a corporation is sentenced, because it doesn’t say the Sacklers are being sentenced. From a quick google search it seems the best that can happen is massive fines? Thats it? Lame.
hmm. 865,000,000/140,000 = 6178.57, well thats not much.
”We couldn’t get it to a point where you could get recovery without a prescription. And the option was either, you know, blow up the settlement or take the concessions that you were able to extract.”
I’ve heard the sentiment that people should take the settlements they are offered. Don’t try and fight a case. It will be grueling. Just take the money you can now. I think thats really crappy. I don’t think their necessarily saying thats how things should be, but its kind of lame how bad the court systems are that your better off getting screwed over some money you may be rightly entitled too in order to not deal with the legal system.
hmm
U.S. District Judge Sean Lane
SDNY. I’ve heard bad things about judges from there and their corporate biases. Granted that information primarily came from a lawyer that has his own issues (I don’t know if hes changed his opinion but he had opinions on the capital attack being mostly peaceful/not a insurrection or whatever and now I’ve been made aware it was bad).
“How much time do I put towards this, and energy and money, just to get to the end and then have them say, ‘No, denied’?”
thats really sad.
