So then why did they choose to settle? That makes no sense. The only reason a defendant settles is to minimize potential losses.
the settlement was also in the interest of the government, which may now end up with tens of thousands of separate suits to manage and $6bn less to help manage the crisis unfolding in the meantime
don't get me wrong, the sacklers could end up worse off... but it's a big if and will take much much longer
???
If a company voluntarily enters into a settlement, it's because they think they're saving money somewhere else.
In this case the Sacklers are granted immunity to all future lawsuits.
It's a gain of billions of dollars that everyone agrees they should not have had in the first place. That's really much more significant.
It's pretty telling that literally nobody says that the Sackler family should actually have this money, just varying degrees of it being hard to claw back from them.
If someone walks into my house, stabs me with a knife, and steals the money on my dresser, keeping half of the money they took from me is the exact opposite of a loss for them.
The deal was pragmatic in the absence of a clear path for actual consequences.
It would be easier to rally an angry mob at this point.
They are now likely to pay much less by settling smaller individual cases, which will take significantly longer and cost claimants significantly more to pursue.
When they die (which will be soon, most of them are 75+) it'll become even more difficult to get anything.
The deal that was overruled was certainly not justice, but reality will likely be worse. There's no outcome that will render them not billionaires within their lifetimes.