It's taken six months for the Supreme Court to reach a final decision in the Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy settlement. The settlement was controversial because it would allow members of the founding family of Purdue Family to be shielded from personal liability by contributing a significant portion (I think it was about 30%-40%) of the profits they took out of Purdue during the years it was profiting from opiod (Oxycontin and other drugs) sales to a fund to help the victims of opiod marketing misrepresentations. What's interesting to me is the split in the court. It's not your usual 5-4 split. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. But the dissenters were Justice Roberts, Justice Cavanaugh, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor. So on the dissent you have one moderate (Roberts), one conservative (Cavanaugh) and two liberals (Kagan and Sotomayor). I would have thought that Justice Jackson would have sided with Kagan and Sotomayor and in that case the settlement would have been upheld. The settlement is controversial because it protects the founding family. However, it was popular with many, but not all, families of the victims of Purdue's misdeeds. It's unclear what happens next. It's possible the founding family members may file bankruptcy but perhhaps just as likely that they will return to the table with a more generous settlement offer but one which protects them directly rather than just contributes to the bankruptcy payout from Purdue Pharma. I'd be very interested to hear if others who may have followed this more closely or may have a direct stake in the settlement have to say.
I read Patrick Radden Keefe's Empire of Pain. I have a hard time providing any rational dispassionate legal opinion on whether the settlement should have been upheld. Yes it provided much-needed payouts, but it is horrific that the Sacklers retain anything. I am not a bankruptcy expert and I understand that such settlements are customary when the offenders have sufficient resources. And Roberts is no moderate. Not even close.
Sure it will. I'm sure this is based on your "research" (you and cletus chewing the fat down at the Waffle House). Try to stay on topic.
LMFAO! So, you can prove that. NO... you cannot prove that. Only a fool would espouse that UN-PROVABLE tripe. Let's see here, it never prevent you from getting Covid-19... FACT The "vaccine" never stopped you from passing to others... FACT The VAX never proved to have an above 48% efficacy... FACT. The FDA had to CHANGE THE DEFINITION of a vaccine to okay it... FACT. You had to take several "boosters" and it still didn't work... FACT There is more...
1. FALSE, not fact. 2. True 3. FALSE, not fact. 4. FALSE, not fact. 5. FALSE, not fact. Additional FACT, most vaccines are a multi-shot series and if you even understood the least little bit about your immune system and how vaccines work you would know why.
Sadly it should not have to. I fear they will somehow be protected. Just saw on the bottom line the cdc is saying 6 month olds should take the new shot. Unbelievable!
