The Supreme Court has rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would've shielded Sackler family members who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would've provided billions of dollars to combat the epidemic.
    • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
      23·
      4 months ago

      It was rejected because the settlement would have made the company bulletproof against any further civil suits and effectively left the most villainous people with billions of dollars

          • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
            12·
            4 months ago

            Quote the block you’re referring to please. The lawyer wouldn’t be calling this a major setback if the plan was flawed (what you’re seemingly claiming) - in fact:

            “The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. “

            Which actually means the opposite of what I think you’re getting at. Even if they bankrupted, they could still be sued. Help me understand where/what you saw that lead to this rationale.

            • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
              41·
              4 months ago

              You read the same article I did buddy, I don’t have any other information. If you disagree with my assessment of it that’s fine, I’m not going to sit here and copy/paste the whole article for you though.

                • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
                  41·
                  4 months ago

                  Dude, it literally says it in the article in the post. If you can’t be bothered to read it that’s not my problem. I’m not going to go through and post quotes and links to an article that the post has already provided. It’s not difficult, just click the link in the post

                  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
                    13·
                    4 months ago

                    I’ve obviously read the article. I posted quotes from the article.

                    You don’t need to do anything - but if you’re going to make a claim that someone has explicitly countered with a direct quote, the sensible thing would be to continue the conversation.

                    At best, you’re trolling. We can conclude this conversation if you’re too lazy to actually back up anything you’ve said with tangible evidence. Until then you’re just saying words. That’s the only factual take away anyone should have from your claim.