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
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.
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.
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
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.
Because of fucking course
Who will we blame our problems on if we just go and start taking steps towards solving them
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
Do you have source for this so I can learn more?
Yes. It says it quite clearly in the article above. That’s where I read it.
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.
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.
Makes claim
Makes no attempt to back it up
Kk good talk lol
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
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.
But they bankrupted their shell company and paid like 250,000 5 years ago what more could you monsters want‽
/s