The DOJ tells the Sacklers, not so fast, not so sweet, not so slick to be able to skate personal liability for their conduct and obscene profiteering off their opiate dealings.

 Ars Technica, "Billionaire Sacklers’ immunity threatened as DOJ moves to block opioid deal - The DOJ argues the immunity is unconstitutional and expects the deal to be overturned." By -  Beth Mole - Sep 16, 2021 10:49 pm UTC

In part -

 Attorneys for the department argued that some aspects of the deal could go into effect quickly, complicating the appeal, according to NPR. Along with the DOJ, Connecticut, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Washington state are also preparing to fight the settlement.

The Justice Department also requested an expedited hearing within the next two weeks.

William Harrington, who serves as US trustee for the Justice Department, said in filings Wednesday that Federal Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain was wrong to approve the settlement on September 1 and that the decision would likely be overturned.

The settlement essentially dissolves Purdue Pharma, which was owned and largely run by the Sacklers. The company aggressively and deceptively marketed OxyContin beginning in the 1990s and is largely seen as sparking the devastating epidemic of opioid addiction and overdoses that has killed nearly 500,000 people in the US over the last two decades. Purdue pleaded guilty twice for wrongdoing in its marketing of OxyContin in that time. The settlement put to rest thousands of opioid-related lawsuits against Purdue, which had declared bankruptcy under the crushing litigation.

The Sacklers were directly involved in Purdue's opioid business and, by their own account, pocketed more than $10 billion from opioid sales. [...]

[...] Still, as part of the settlement, the Sacklers agreed to never again manufacture opioids and provide $4.325 billion to fund opioid addiction prevention, treatment, and recovery programs. They also agreed to hand over control of family foundations valued at no less than $175 million.

But that $4.5 billion agreement came with a big string attached: the Sacklers demanded that they be granted legal immunity from future opioid-related claims. Such liability releases can be granted in bankruptcy cases, but the Sacklers themselves did not file for bankruptcy.

Judge Drain, who himself called the settlement a "bitter result," argued in his approval of the deal that it was the best way to get any money out of the Sacklers. "I believe that at least some of the Sackler parties also have liability for those [opioid] claims... I would have expected a higher settlement," he said. But "without the releases, the plan would unravel."

In filings Wednesday [Sept. 15] , DOJ trustee Harrington argued that the releases are unconstitutional because they deprive people of the ability to make legal claims—a form of property—against the Sacklers, [...]

The greed of opium dealers, and their audacity, is astounding. The family are piranhas and a total shunning of them and their "philanthropy" is appropriate.

They knew what they were up to and they did it for the money. They show a gross disregard for human decency. The "let us off the hook personally or we do not settle for a fraction of our take" approach is within their legal right to seek, but it is filthy enough to gag a maggot.