A federal bankruptcy court judge on Friday said he would approve OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma’s latest deal to settle thousands of lawsuits over the toll of opioids that includes some money for thousands of victims of the epidemic.
The deal overseen by US bankruptcy judge Sean Lane would require some of the multibillionaire members of the semi-reclusive Sackler family who own the company to contribute up to $7bn and give up ownership of the Connecticut-based firm.
The new agreement replaces one the US supreme court rejected last year, finding it would have improperly protected members of the family against future lawsuits. The judge said he would explain his decision in a hearing on Tuesday.
And how do you propose the people crunching the numbers separate these cases? Most addicts will lie about how they became addicted, choosing whatever story they feel paints them in a positive light. Most families of deceased addicts will stick to the same story, either because they believe it or because they too want to paint their dearly departed as a victim rather than irresponsible. Practically speaking, there is no way to get an accurate split between who was addicted to prescription drugs first and who wasn’t.
If you don’t have good statistics, then you don’t include them right next to talking about the prescription drug epidemic sending the impression (If not precisely stating) that your number is directly caused by prescription drugs.
Journalistic integrity is important.
I agree, but exactly zero large media organizations agree as well. Journalistic integrity is bad for business. That said, when a huge corporation is profiting by turning people into addicts and killing them, I have no sympathy. Let the FDA and DEA worry about which opioid deaths are whose fault while the courts lay each and every one at Purdue’s feet. The odds that they deserve it due to some other as-yet undiscovered shenanigans that they’re likely to get away with are as close to 100% as makes no difference.
I agree on journalistic integrity. But isn’t it important to uphold that standard, even if others don’t?
They may deserve it, but it’s by knowing those details that we determine if they do or not.
Because otherwise your position basically becomes ‘If company did thing x and as a result is bad, it’s okay to blame them for thing y and thing z, which they probably had nothing to do with, but we’ve already determined they are bad and therefore they deserve any blame we throw at them justified or not’.
The problem with that is it sets up witch hunts. You are bad, therefore we can blame you for anything we want, and that blame justifies your being treated as bad.
That is why the Constitution mandates due process. And we should uphold that same standard, in our minds and in our positions and in our debates.
That would be a very fair assessment if the entire system weren’t rigged for the benefit of corporations and the very wealthy. Mitt Romney said thay “corporations are people too” so I’d like to see them get death sentences as well.
Much like racism, the solution isn’t to rig it in the other direction, the solution is to unrig it.
There should absolutely be a corporate death penalty. Perhaps the same process should be used for anything too big to fail. Nationalize the company, All existing shareholders and equity owners get wiped out. Then either wind down operations or appoint an interim administrator and interim directors, then issue a new stock offering the proceeds of which first pay back any taxpayer expenses or bailouts, then pay back creditors, then used as capital for the company.
That’s what should have happened to all the banks that got bailed out. Wipe out anybody who held the stock, fire management, then issue new stock for purchase, the proceeds of which pay back the bailout.
If nothing else this would make investors take a much more active interest in the malfeasance of the companies they invest in.
That’s a grrat solution. Sadly, that means it won’t ever be implemented.
In some ways we as a society are afraid of change. A solution like I propose would require a serious rethink of major capital investors. Even if it was only limited to companies needing a bailout, it would make investors sit up and take notice on what their holdings are actually doing.
I think it should also be done in extreme cases where the company flagrantly violated the law. Forget the usual million dollar fine for a company that spends more on office supplies. Forget the billion-dollar fine that takes a hit on the financials. Wipe the owners out.
I think Purdue might be a good case for that. The company clearly and blatantly violated every legal and ethical standard and destroyed lives as a result.