[bradford]

> Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims?

I can see it going both ways, yes: this means that 6 billion dollars are not immediately available for compensation.

On the other hand, certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation in hopes that future lawsuits would yield more.

I view this decision as rejecting the immediate compensation, but opening up possibility for greater compensation in the future (with obvious risks and delays).

[JumpCrisscross]

> certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation

As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.” The holdouts were “a small group of Canadian creditors and one lone individual.”

I always thought of the Sackler carve-out as a scam. But the dissent gives me pause. This ruling trades restitution for retribution. In all likelihood, many classes of victims—such as small victims, small states and local governments—won’t see a penny, at least for years.

[rootusrootus]

> This ruling trades restitution for retribution

IMO the money is a pittance, sounds like a lot but it's just a fraction of what the federal government spends on any given day. We can afford to carve out the financial resources to help victims. The retribution is totally worth it, because it needs to be understood that behavior like this will get punished. It should be painful, not just the cost of doing business.

[bradford]

> As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.”

Thanks for the correction! I must have read about Washington States objection a while ago, and been unaware of a change in their position (since I first read about it)