Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 16 2019, @11:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the A-Rose-By-Any-Other-Name dept.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49711618

In the face of thousands of lawsuits about the alleging abusive practices contributing to the opioid crisis in the US, Purdue Pharma (makers of OxiCotin) are filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. If the courts agree, this would allow them to restructure their debts and continue operations.

"Under the terms of the [proposed] deal, Purdue is to be dissolved and the money raised - estimated to be about $10bn-$12bn (£8bn-£9.7bn), including a minimum cash contribution of $3bn from the Sackler family - will go towards settling the lawsuits. The Sacklers have also offered an additional $1.5bn from the eventual sale of Mundipharma, another pharmaceutical firm owned by the family.

Several of the states that oppose the deal, such as New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, have questioned how Purdue came up with the contribution figure.

The states want the Sackler family to put in more of its own money into the deal."

Note: Bankruptcy is not what regular people think it is. Similar to the "kill" command in Unix/Linux, there are lots of versions which may or may not do what people think. As an example, see: https://www.credit.com/debt/filing-for-bankruptcy-difference-between-chapters-7-11-13/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 17 2019, @12:59AM

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @12:59AM (#894925)

    That was an interesting read, but the Common Reporting Standard still clashes with the Swiss Federal Act on Banks and Savings Banks:

    On January 6, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Swiss bankers "[have] nothing to do with the choice that an American taxpayer makes to not declare offshore assets."[33] This ruling sets a district court precedent that Swiss bankers should not be seen as facilitating tax evasion but rather providing a legal service that is made illegal by the client.[33]

    This Wikipedia article is full of quote like that. [wikipedia.org]

    Disclosing banking information is illegal in Switzerland, and that is not a new thing.

    If the Sackler family is sending money there, they have a very good reason to.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2