• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Perdue to declare bankruptcy

marke

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
34,752
Reaction score
3,961
Location
north carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
There is not a drug, a chemical, or a product on the US market that is immune from smart greedy lawyers who know how to manipulate juries to find guilt where no guilt lies in order to procure million or billion dollar settlements for themselves and their participants. If Perdue declares bankruptcy, however, the states, individuals and others hoping to glean billions of dollars in settlements from them for supposedly being evil for supplying successful prescription drugs to the public will be disappointed.

Unfair, frivolous, and inaccurate lawsuits can bring companies down, can hinder research and development, can discourage progress and innovation, and make people less safe and healthy, but the promise of huge windfalls from crafty litigation drives the legal profession to new heights of irresponsible selfishness.
 
Oh no's. Where am I gonna get some oxy now. :thinking
 
1. Yes, many lawyers are greedy, unscrupulous, and incompetent, to boot.

2. Sadly, however, we need lawyers.


3. There are so many bad people in every country that lawyers are our only defense against bad people, and in many cases that defense is useless.


4. Let's face it: Bad as many lawyers are, we need them to protect us from individuals and groups who are always trying to find ways to rip us off.


a. Human beings are no darn good!
 
1. Yes, many lawyers are greedy, unscrupulous, and incompetent, to boot.

2. Sadly, however, we need lawyers.


3. There are so many bad people in every country that lawyers are our only defense against bad people, and in many cases that defense is useless.


4. Let's face it: Bad as many lawyers are, we need them to protect us from individuals and groups who are always trying to find ways to rip us off.


a. Human beings are no darn good!

The idea that a bad company should be allowed to continue to operate so we can bleed them for money is an anathema. When they go under, their patents will end up in better hands (hopefully).
 
There is not a drug, a chemical, or a product on the US market that is immune from smart greedy lawyers who know how to manipulate juries to find guilt where no guilt lies in order to procure million or billion dollar settlements for themselves and their participants. If Perdue declares bankruptcy, however, the states, individuals and others hoping to glean billions of dollars in settlements from them for supposedly being evil for supplying successful prescription drugs to the public will be disappointed.

Unfair, frivolous, and inaccurate lawsuits can bring companies down, can hinder research and development, can discourage progress and innovation, and make people less safe and healthy, but the promise of huge windfalls from crafty litigation drives the legal profession to new heights of irresponsible selfishness.

Origins of an Epidemic: Purdue Pharma Knew Its Opioids Were Widely Abused - The New York Times

Justice is imperfect, and you get the Justice Department you get.
Perdue pharma:
A confidential Justice Department report found the company was aware early on that OxyContin was being crushed and snorted for its powerful narcotic, but continued to promote it as less addictive.
 
Origins of an Epidemic: Purdue Pharma Knew Its Opioids Were Widely Abused - The New York Times

Justice is imperfect, and you get the Justice Department you get.
Perdue pharma:

Have you ever used 'Roundup' and then gotten sick later for whatever reason? If so there are lawyers who want to tie your illness to the product in view so they can build a case for convincing gullible juries that the product caused all the different diseases in the book. The claim does not have to be proven true, the lawyers just need to convince a dozen gullible people that it is true.
 
1. Yes, many lawyers are greedy, unscrupulous, and incompetent, to boot.

2. Sadly, however, we need lawyers.


3. There are so many bad people in every country that lawyers are our only defense against bad people, and in many cases that defense is useless.


4. Let's face it: Bad as many lawyers are, we need them to protect us from individuals and groups who are always trying to find ways to rip us off.


a. Human beings are no darn good!

They can't be too incompetent if they're winning their lawsuits.:mrgreen:
 
Have you ever used 'Roundup' and then gotten sick later for whatever reason? If so there are lawyers who want to tie your illness to the product in view so they can build a case for convincing gullible juries that the product caused all the different diseases in the book. The claim does not have to be proven true, the lawyers just need to convince a dozen gullible people that it is true.

Hasn't Roundup been proven to be carcinogenic? If it's manufacturers knew about it and concealed its dangers, they should be liable.
 
Hasn't Roundup been proven to be carcinogenic? If it's manufacturers knew about it and concealed its dangers, they should be liable.

Everything in the chemical world is a possible carcinogenic. Lawyers and liars deceive ignorant juries that chemical companies are bad, their officers are wicked and greedy and everything they do is directed at deceiving stupid people into buying and using their product. That is a lie, of course. What would be closer to the truth would be to say that many immoral lawyers are greedy, dishonest, self-serving and wickedly manipulate stupid people to find big businesses at serious fault where no fault exists so that they can immorally, unethically and even illegally rob those big businesses of millions of dollars for themselves to feed their selfish opulent lifestyles.
 
Everything in the chemical world is a possible carcinogenic. Lawyers and liars deceive ignorant juries that chemical companies are bad, their officers are wicked and greedy and everything they do is directed at deceiving stupid people into buying and using their product. That is a lie, of course. What would be closer to the truth would be to say that many immoral lawyers are greedy, dishonest, self-serving and wickedly manipulate stupid people to find big businesses at serious fault where no fault exists so that they can immorally, unethically and even illegally rob those big businesses of millions of dollars for themselves to feed their selfish opulent lifestyles.

If this is as you say, Perdue just has to hire better lawyers. The thing about truth is that it will come through. If he is defending the truth, a lawyer should be able to cut through the bull**** and obfuscation of the other side and make that clear to an impartial jury. Are you now going to tell me that the jury is stupid or corrupt or somehow in on all this?
 
There is not a drug, a chemical, or a product on the US market that is immune from smart greedy lawyers who know how to manipulate juries to find guilt where no guilt lies in order to procure million or billion dollar settlements for themselves and their participants. If Perdue declares bankruptcy, however, the states, individuals and others hoping to glean billions of dollars in settlements from them for supposedly being evil for supplying successful prescription drugs to the public will be disappointed.

Unfair, frivolous, and inaccurate lawsuits can bring companies down, can hinder research and development, can discourage progress and innovation, and make people less safe and healthy, but the promise of huge windfalls from crafty litigation drives the legal profession to new heights of irresponsible selfishness.

Source?
 
If this is as you say, Perdue just has to hire better lawyers. The thing about truth is that it will come through. If he is defending the truth, a lawyer should be able to cut through the bull**** and obfuscation of the other side and make that clear to an impartial jury. Are you now going to tell me that the jury is stupid or corrupt or somehow in on all this?

Yes, I'm saying juries can be easily misled to do the wrong thing by immoral lawyers just out to extort big money from deep pockets for their own narcissistic reasons.
 

Perhaps a look at this will help:

https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/american_litigation_crisis.htm

AMERICA'S LITIGATION CRISIS

...16.5 million lawsuits in a typical year...
Some 60,000 jobs have been lost due just to bankruptcies caused by asbestos litigation, which ripple through state and local economies. For every 10 jobs directly lost due to these bankruptcies, another eight are lost in local economies.

...A big part of the solution is to put fair and reasonable limits on punitive damage awards. Many of these awards are excessive and out of control. In 2002, the top 10 jury awards alone totaled more than $32.7 billion.

...We also have to recognize that trial lawyers have spent millions to stack the deck in favor of abusive lawsuits -- $470 million alone on federal campaigns since 1990.


I agree with the conclusion expressed by this author. "We will not end this litigation crisis until we recognize it exists.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm saying juries can be easily misled to do the wrong thing by immoral lawyers just out to extort big money from deep pockets for their own narcissistic reasons.

Perdue is a large and wealthy company. If they can't find a lawyer smart and capable enough to successfully defend them, maybe it's because they're guilty. It's guilt that must be proved, not innocence.
 
Hasn't Roundup been proven to be carcinogenic? If it's manufacturers knew about it and concealed its dangers, they should be liable.

Current consensus is that it is not carcinogenic and the only cases brought thusfar involve ignoring the instructions on the product label. Which brings us to intended use. Should a company be held liable for the consequences of misuse of their product? Especially when it is not the party responsible for writing the prescriptions?
 
Perhaps a look at this will help:

https://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/american_litigation_crisis.htm

AMERICA'S LITIGATION CRISIS

...16.5 million lawsuits in a typical year...
Some 60,000 jobs have been lost due just to bankruptcies caused by asbestos litigation, which ripple through state and local economies. For every 10 jobs directly lost due to these bankruptcies, another eight are lost in local economies.

...A big part of the solution is to put fair and reasonable limits on punitive damage awards. Many of these awards are excessive and out of control. In 2002, the top 10 jury awards alone totaled more than $32.7 billion.

...We also have to recognize that trial lawyers have spent millions to stack the deck in favor of abusive lawsuits -- $470 million alone on federal campaigns since 1990.


I agree with the conclusion expressed by this author. "We will not end this litigation crisis until we recognize it exists.

Email: Opioid talks fail, Purdue bankruptcy filing expected - ABC News

or

Perdue sued for claiming its chickens raised 'humanely' - Baltimore Sun
 
Last edited:
Current consensus is that it is not carcinogenic and the only cases brought thusfar involve ignoring the instructions on the product label. Which brings us to intended use. Should a company be held liable for the consequences of misuse of their product? Especially when it is not the party responsible for writing the prescriptions?

Of course not. If that's true, I doubt the case will go anywhere.
 
Of course not. If that's true, I doubt the case will go anywhere.

I would expect it to because, unfortunately, the standard of proof in civil courts is far lower than in criminal courts.
 
I would expect it to because, unfortunately, the standard of proof in civil courts is far lower than in criminal courts.

Good point. We'll just have to see. My daughter's brother in law is an eye surgeon. He was sued a couple years ago by a patient who ignored his instructions on her post surgical care. The case was dropped before going to court.
 
Perdue is a large and wealthy company. If they can't find a lawyer smart and capable enough to successfully defend them, maybe it's because they're guilty. It's guilt that must be proved, not innocence.

Dummies think corporations are rich and greedy. That is a common ignorant assumption and the incessant spread of such ignorance does great damage to society as a whole.
 
Some time ago a Japanese official was asked why is Japan so successful in the auto manufacturing section compared to the USA. The response? "We make great cars. The USA makes great lawyers."
 
Current consensus is that it is not carcinogenic and the only cases brought thusfar involve ignoring the instructions on the product label. Which brings us to intended use. Should a company be held liable for the consequences of misuse of their product? Especially when it is not the party responsible for writing the prescriptions?

Bayer has since disputed this story, but if there is any basis, then they seem to feel there is liability here.

Bayer Looking to Settle Roundup Lawsuits for $8 Billion • Legal Scoops
 
It’s not an admission of liability so much as acknowledgement that a civil court could and probably would hold them liable regardless of the facts. They have experienced that before.

I always shake my head when I hear of a large settlement that comes with either a gag order or the “admits no wrong-doing” addendum.
 
Back
Top Bottom