Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Season 8 Episode 20
Aired on August 8, 2021
Main segment: Sackler family
Other segments: Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations, Russian Olympic Committee
Guest: Richard Kind, H. Jon Benjamin (voice-over)
* * *
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
John: Hi, there, welcome to the show, still for just three more weeks taking place in this blank void, which I recently learned is sentient. It’s been listening a lot to me, so I thought I would give it the floor for a moment. Void, is there anything you would like to say?
Really? I can say anything I want?
John: Go ahead, speak your mind.
Okay. Wow. I wish Chris Pratt wasn’t trying to make the action hero thing stick. You know?
John: uh-huh.
It’s his career, he can do whatever he wants with it. I just feel like the buff thing, it’s not working for me.
John: Okay, I’ve got to be honest. I thought you would be more interesting than this.
Excuse me? You ask someone on their show and tell them to say whatever they want. They can say whatever they want, and then you tell them they are not interesting? Who does that? What kind of monster does that?
John: That is fair.
You know what? I see why you stopped having guests on on season one.
John: Moving on —
You are not a nice person.
John: Moving on. Tucker Carlson celebrated international authoritarian appreciation week by doing a road-show in Hungary, O.J. Simpson urged people to get vaccinated, putting me in the strange position of saying “I’m with O.J.,” and New York’s AG released a devastating report of his investigation into allegations devastating sexual harassment by Andrew Cuomo which, incredibly, he is trying to ride out, trying to downplay the accusations.
I do kiss people on the forehead. I do kiss people on the cheek. I do kiss people on the hand. I do embrace people. I do hug people, men and women.
John: Okay! But that’s not what this is about. And it’s frankly incredible that Cuomo thought releasing an irrelevant montage of photos would somehow exonerate him. Apparently his strategy for literally any crisis is “put together a Powerpoint and that’s it.” But the rest of the world’s attention was dominated this week by the Olympics. They ended tonight and they provided some incredible moments from the athletes, but also some controversy from the fact the games were even happening in the first place, in the middle of a pandemic, to a decision taken before they began regarding one of the teams involved.
In other Olympic news this morning, Russia is competing under a new name at these Olympics following their doping scandal. They’ll be competing as the “Russian Olympic Committee.” The Russian name, flag, and anthem have all been banned if athletes do win any medals.
John: Yeah, though the Russian name isn’t really banned if they’re competing as the “Russian” Olympic Committee, is it? It’s like saying, “a monster like Harvey Weinstein has absolutely no affiliation with the Weinstein Company.” I dunno about that. The name there really implies otherwise. The new designation is due to the fact that Russia was technically banned for operating a years-long, state-sponsored doping scheme, and this isn’t the first time they’ve been sanctioned. In Pyeongchang in 2018, Russian athletes had to compete under this neutral banner instead of their flag. But before Tokyo, the punishment was downgraded, and they were allowed to compete as the “Russian Olympic Committee” with uniforms that clearly bear more than a passing resemblance to the Russian flag. We all know what is going on there, in the same way that calling this a red plumber Halloween costume isn’t fooling anyone. And while winning Russian athletes didn’t get to hear their national anthem on the medal stand, they did get this:
[Tchaikovsky’s piano concerto no. 1]
♪ ♪
Yeah, they got Tchaikovsky. That is more Russian than the Russian national anthem. In fact, there is no sound more quintessentially Russian, aside from maybe an old man weeping uncontrollably while eating a potato. If anything, it seems Russia embraced the R.O.C. designation during these games, with the official @russia account even running a campaign using the hashtag #wewillrocyou. And you don’t get to use “R.O.C.” as a fun, sassy name! That was supposed to be your punishment. It’s like if Hannibal Lecter started tweeting #muzzlemedaddy. No! You eat people. You don’t get to reclaim the muzzle. The thing is, these designations were put in place for a reason — but that reason is not something the R.O.C.’s been eager to acknowledge. After a U.S. swimmer initially suggested his race “was probably not clean,” the R.O.C. — Whose athlete had won that race — responded aggressively:
The Russian Olympic Committee have responded via a strongly worded statement on twitter which says, in part, “how unnerving our victories are for some. Yes, we are here at the Olympics. Absolutely right. Whether people like it or not.”
John: Wow. That is a hard pushback. And the R.O.C. Was very much not done, calling the complaints “English-language propaganda, oozing verbal sweat in the Tokyo heat.” Which is undeniably poetic. “Oozing verbal sweat in the Tokyo heat” sounds less like Russian tough talk and more like a line from “a streetcar named desire 2: blanche goes east.” It’s pretty clear that making Russia compete under a supposedly “neutral” flag and uniforms, when neither the flag nor the uniforms were neutral, means that this punishment wasn’t really a punishment at all. So let’s try and learn from this, and next time this problem arises, let’s make sure banned countries have a much clearer asterisk on their participation. So instead of a obviously flag-themed tracksuit, let’s put them in a Shrek-themed sweatshirt paired with shit emoji slippers and a lobster hat. Something like this: see? Now that is a neutral look. Good luck guessing what nation that athlete is competing for from that outfit. And when their athletes win gold, don’t give them something that inspires national pride like Tchaikovsky. Instead, play something awful that’s guaranteed to stick in your head and remind you that something objectionable has happened. May I suggest this:
♪ 1 877 Kars 4 kids ♪
♪ k-a-r-s, kars for kids ♪
♪ 1-877 kars 4 kids ♪
♪ donate your car today! ♪
John: Now I know it’s harsh, of but let’s agree, it is the ultimate deterrent. And now this.
* * *
Announcer: And now, the electrifying small talk of California’s “daytime with Kimberly and Esteban.”
“Daytid Esteban” starts now.
Welcome to “daytime.” It’s Monday.
It is Monday.
Holla! Hello. How was your weekend?
Busy but good.
How are you?
I am good. Yourself?
Doing good. How are you?
Good. Chilling. Another day.
What is up? Have you ever wondered how smart your dog is?
Yeah.
Airing movies you can’t necessarily see at the theaters. We are ready, we are in this spirit.
Yep. We are.
This is one of my favorite shows we do every single year.
I think it’s… Fun.
Doing good. Doing real good.
All rights.
How are you doing.
Good.
Not a lot of change from yesterday. It’s good morning.
How was the day? Good?
Again, good.
* * *
John: Moving on. Our main story tonight concerns a public health crisis that’s exposed the failure of American institutions. No, not that one. Not that one either. That’s a good point, but not actually this time. Yep, there it is. The opioid epidemic. And if you’re thinking, “hold on, didn’t you already do a show about this?” You’re wrong. We’ve actually done two of them, but we thought it would be worth doing a third installment tonight for a couple of reasons. First, it’s an epidemic that’s still very much raging, exacerbated by both the pandemic and illicit fentanyl, to the point that last year, nearly 70,000 people died from opioid overdoses. That is the highest annual death toll ever. And second, you may have seen a bunch of headlines recently about trials and settlements taking place around the country. There’ve been so many, it can be genuinely be hard to keep track. But we want to focus on just one company tonight: Purdue Pharma, whose rollout of oxycontin arguably fueled the opioid crisis. We’ve talked about their relentless push to sell oxycontin before, but more material has come out in the last couple of years — including this spectacular glimpse into a 1997 motivational sales meeting for the company’s drug reps:
♪ You know, you make me want to sell! ♪
♪ Oxycontin! ♪
♪ Ms contin! ♪
♪ Settle down now! ♪
♪ Settle down now! ♪
♪ We’re Purdue now! ♪
♪ Sell! ♪
♪ Me and you now! ♪
♪ Sell! ♪
♪ Come on now! ♪
♪ Sell! ♪
♪ Come on now! ♪
♪ Sell! ♪
♪ Come on now! ♪
♪ Sell! ♪
John: Wow. That was Purdue’s VP of sales performing an oxy-themed cover of “shout!” And that has got to be the one of the most upsetting decisions from the late ’90s, right up there with, “give every lonely child an electronic imaginary friend that will immediately die,” and “let’s set every sitcom in New York City. And make sure the twin towers are prominently featured in the transition shots, really remind people they’re there.” Purdue Pharma is owned by the Sackler family, and in recent years, Purdue and the Sacklers have found themselves being investigated by the DOJ and facing thousands of lawsuits filed by state and local governments, native American tribes, hospitals, and individuals. And they’ve spent years working with an army of lawyers, attempting to negotiate their way out of all of it, which has resulted in two major resolutions, including this big news from last October.
It’s being hailed by the federal government as a major victory against a company whose drug oxycontin is part of the public health crisis of opioid addiction that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
The maker of oxycontin admitted to defrauding regulators and paying illegal kickbacks to doctors.
John: It’s true! Purdue has pled guilty to multiple felonies. And it’s weird to hear news that sounds so genuinely good. It’d be really nice to get more of that once in a while, like “no once-in-a-century weather events for the next few hours,” or “billionaire goes to space and dies there.” You know, something heartwarming. That guilty plea was actually part of a much larger plan we’ll get into later, involving the company also filing for bankruptcy, and just this past march, submitting a reorganization plan that would end Sackler ownership. And the thing is, this might all sound like a major victory — that the Sacklers are finally experiencing significant consequences — but unfortunately, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. So tonight, with the bankruptcy’s confirmation hearing scheduled to begin later this week, let’s talk about the Sackler family — how hard they’ve been fighting to defend their name, the details of the deal they’re attempting to strike, and why the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit. And let’s start with a basic question: who are the Sacklers? Well, the Sacklers are the descendants of three brothers — Arthur, Raymond, and Mortimer — who in 1952 bought the company that would eventually become Purdue Pharma. And while Arthur’s branch of the family sold their stake decades ago, before oxycontin was developed, the heirs of Raymond and Mortimer both benefited from, and in some cases actively managed, Purdue’s boom years of selling opioids. Many Sacklers either worked at the company or served on its board, and as the Massachusetts A.G. points out, some of them were pretty hands-on.
They were in the boardroom. They owned the company. We have emails and memos that show the direct control that they exercised over sales and marketing. One of the Sackler family members went so far as to want to get in the car with Purdue’s sales reps and drive around to visit doctors’ offices.
John: It’s true, and doing a drug rep ride-along is about as hands-on as you can get. And quick side note, spare a thought for the sales rep in question there. Sure, they too contributed to the over-prescription of America and probably led to their own local mini-epidemic, but nobody — not even Hitler — should have to sit in a car with their boss. And talk about what? The weather? And then, when you run out of things to say about it, do what? Sit in silence? And then say, “actually, I could go for a bathroom break right now,” and have him say, “I’m fine, but feel free to stop?” And then, what — you stop? And he waits in the car? And then when you get back he looks inconvenienced? I would sooner throw myself out of the car in the middle of the freeway. Now, the man responsible for that ride-along was Richard Sackler, who was actually president of the company for years. And yet, interestingly, it’s hard to find images of him other than that one. In fact, while the Sacklers have relished slapping their family name on institutions, as individuals, they’ve tried to stay out of the spotlight. When Richard Sackler gave a deposition in 2015, Purdue fought hard to keep it private. That’s why, in our last piece, we had a bunch of actors play him to convey important things like the fact he’d said “I don’t know” more than 100 times. Thankfully, that deposition has since been released, so you can finally watch the man in action.
How much money has Purdue Frederick or Purdue Pharma made off the sale of oxycontin?
I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know the answer. I don’t know. I don’t know but — I just don’t know.
John: Admit it — the guy just oozes charisma. Although honestly? Having actually seen it, I think I prefer the version we made:
How much money has Purdue Frederick or Purdue Pharma made off the sale of oxycontin?
I dunno. I dunno. I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t know.
How many Purdue entities are there?
I dunno!
John: Yeah, that’s just objectively better. Now, while Richard was the most involved, he wasn’t alone. His cousin Kathe Sackler was an officer of the company for years and even claimed in emails that developing oxycontin was her idea. Although, despite that, when Kathe was called before congress last year and asked to apologize for her role in the opioid crisis, she didn’t exactly do that.
I have tried to figure out, was — is there anything that I could have done differently knowing what I knew then, not what I know now. I have to say, I can’t — there is nothing that I can find that I would have done differently.
John: Okay, first, that’s not an apology, Kathe. And second, come on — nearly a year into a pandemic, that’s an unacceptable at-home setup. Put your laptop on a couple books. Upgrade your router. And while you’re at it, one-click a ring light. So, Kathe, that’s books, router, ring light. It’s the little zoom tricks we’ve all learned that’ll help you look your best as you absolve yourself of responsibility for a massive public health crisis. But the Sacklers haven’t just been appearing at congressional hearings. Some have been working hard to rehabilitate their image and even paint themselves as victims. Take David Sackler. He’s Richard’s son and a former board member himself. He gave an interview to “vanity fair” featuring this portrait, which looks like it should be a poster for natural family planning in a Christian health clinic. And in it, he complained, “my four-year-old came home from nursery school and asked, ‘why are my friends telling me that our family’s work is killing people?'” Which doesn’t seem remotely credible. For a start, everyone knows that’s not how four-year-olds talk. You’re missing 8 “ums,” 15 “and, and, ands,” 3 times they’re completely out of breath for no reason, and 5 complete trail-offs. I call bullshit on that fake anecdote. But that’s just the beginning. David’s branch of the family was also involved in the launch of a pro-Sackler website that aims to “correct the record,” called judgeforyourselves.info, which is shocking for a number of reasons. First, because billionaires, for some reason, chose not to splurge for the dot-com, but also because of just how petty the website is. It features a list of outlets that mistakenly used the brand name “oxycontin” when they meant the generic “oxycodone,” including a college newspaper, and over seven hours of video presentations in which a catastrophically uncharismatic lawyer attempts to disprove every legal argument ever made against the Sacklers and Purdue. This terrible website of self-serving nonsense has been promoted by, among others, joss Sackler, David’s wife, who you may remember from her failure to face the camera in “vanity fair.” Now, even though joss isn’t directly involved in the family business, she actually talks publicly more than most Sacklers. She has a clothing line called “LBV,” or “Les Bouledogues Vigneronnes,” which translates to “the winemaking bulldogs” and is an offshoot of her “members-only wine and social club.” Joss was also once interviewed for “town & country,” in which she complained about how unfairly the press treats both her and her family, noting that a previous article wouldn’t refer to her as dr. Joss Sackler, despite her telling them she had a PhD in linguistics, going on to say, “they’re going to regret fucking with a linguist.” And that’s one hell of a claim, joss. Because nobody is intimidated by linguists. You’re basically an English major who wasted more time. I’ll fuck with a linguist all day long. I’ll show you: how do you make two proper nouns into a double negative? Joss and David. Boom! Linguist, fucked with. So to recap, it’s pretty clear: some Sacklers have been working extremely hard to try and engender public sympathy. But the real battle the family’s been fighting has been a legal one. And that is what I want to spend the rest of this piece talking about, because while the details of what the Sacklers are doing are incredibly complicated, the end result is both simple and absolutely infuriating. And let’s start with that deal you heard about earlier, where Purdue pled guilty to three felonies. It sounded like some good news. But there are some major asterisks there, because while the company pled guilty to those charges, no individuals did — and certainly no Sacklers. And that alone is a big deal to them. In fact, just watch as Kathe jumped to remind everyone of that fact during her congressional hearing.
The Sackler family, through Purdue, has three felony convictions, but no one’s in jail and it has its billions still.
Excuse me, the Sackler family doesn’t have a felony conviction. Purdue pharma has a felony conviction. I’m an individual person.
John: Okay, hold on. I do get the point she’s making, but the fact is, Purdue is made up of individual people who control it. Think of Purdue like lambchop. If lambchop threatened to kill the president on live tv, lambchop wouldn’t get in trouble or go to prison. Shari Lewis would. Why? Because lambchop is a puppet who does whatever the fuck Shari Lewis tells lambchop to do. Now, the Sacklers might argue that Purdue was controlled by many people — including non-family members — and that while they’re not facing criminal charges, they’re still facing consequences. But here’s the thing: are they? Really? And that brings us back to the bankruptcy I mentioned earlier. Because the bankruptcy deal Purdue has proposed is the vehicle through which the Sacklers are likely to escape any true accountability. Very basically, Purdue was buried in thousands of lawsuits, and rather than fighting them all separately, the company filed for bankruptcy, negotiating to resolve all its debts in one place. This proposed deal requires, among other things, the Sacklers relinquish ownership of Purdue, which will be turned into a “public benefit company,” whose profits will go toward fighting the opioid epidemic. Now, the company claims the bankruptcy will deliver more than $10 billion in value. But a few things about that. First, the Sacklers themselves are only contributing around $4.3 billion to that settlement. Which does sound like a lot until you learn the family has assets of around $11 billion, which is a massive amount of money, but I guess that’s what happens when your company makes a highly addictive product and pushes its employees to —
♪ Sell oxycontin! ♪
♪ Ms Contin! ♪
♪ Sell! ♪
John: I just saw that ten minutes ago and somehow it’s gotten even worse. Also, you might want to know, a lot of the Sackler family’s net worth was built up in a particular period. Because from 2008 to 2017, even as the opioid epidemic was kicking into high gear, more than $10 billion was transferred out of the company for the benefit of the family. Now, the Sacklers fiercely maintain those transfers were proper. But the DOJ alleged that they were made to hinder future creditors — in other words, to get the money out of the company so the Sacklers could protect it — and they found some pretty damning evidence, particularly from David Sackler, who seemed to directly express fears over lawsuits taking the family money back in 2007, writing in an email, “we’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family?” And David, buddy, don’t send that kind of thing over email. I mean, don’t send it in the mail-mail, don’t speak it, don’t think it, don’t receive an upbringing that would plant the thought in your mind, and, if you could, just try and avoid conception altogether. But bare minimum, keep it out of the permanent legal record. And if you’re thinking, “okay, so, they transferred money to the family. But people can still pursue claims against the Sacklers directly, right?” Well, no. Because here’s the really insidious part: while there are approximately 400 civil suits that do name the Sacklers themselves, the family is insisting that they will only agree to this settlement if they get what’s called a non-consensual third-party release. And this thing is bullshit. Because if they get it, all current lawsuits against the Sacklers evaporate and no future lawsuits can be filed. Meaning the Sacklers — who didn’t file for personal bankruptcy themselves, remember — are basically off the hook. And if it sounds weird to you that a company can declare bankruptcy and then a bunch of individuals get shielded from liability, that’s because it is! It’s really fucking weird! In fact, some bankruptcy courts don’t allow these third-party releases at all. But Purdue very carefully chose one that they knew probably would. A few months before filing for bankruptcy, Purdue changed one of its official corporate addresses to one in white plains, New York, at which it’s never conducted business, and where there is only one bankruptcy judge, who — completely coincidentally — has supported third-party releases in the past. Which is all a pretty obvious tactic. It’s not like they moved to white plains for any other reason. If you look up “things to do in white plains” — and this is true — the first result you get is a TripAdvisor page recommending a helicopter tour of New York City. Which is just incredible. “Come visit white plains, where you can immediately leave and go look at somewhere more interesting to live.” And the Sacklers’ third-party release is comprehensive, stating that the released parties shall be conclusively, absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever, and permanently released from any and all claims, of any kind, from the beginning of time. And this is the list of every person and entity they want covered. It contains over 200 companies and 200 more trusts where the Sacklers have tucked their money away. This release is ludicrously broad, which is probably why nine state A.G.S are still objecting to it, and two branches of the DOJ have said it violates the U.S. Constitution and specifically violates due process, because it denies individuals of an opportunity to be heard, and yet, incredibly, despite all this, it’s widely assumed that this whole deal is going to go ahead. And while it sounds terrible to me, I will say, at least one person thinks that’s a very good thing. Although I will say, that one person is Purdue’s current chairman.
This is a milestone in public health history. Never before have you seen this amount of money, $10 billion being devoted to opioid abatement, and it’s only available through this plan, assuming we can get it approved. And I think when people think about it, they will come around to the notion, “well, I might have liked something slightly different, but this is certainly a lot better than going into endless, costly litigation that may end up with no proceeds going to anybody.”
John: Okay, no. “I might have liked something different, but this is better than nothing” is what you say when your dad insists on having dinner at chili’s, not when you’re talking about the fate of a company that poisoned a generation. Which, incidentally, is, I believe, chili’s current slogan. And here’s the thing: that man’s not even entirely wrong. The longer these lawsuits drag on, the more money will get wasted in court, and an increasingly large percentage of it will go to lawyers rather than victims. Because right now, under this settlement, claimants could receive payments from $3,500 to $48,000. Which, yes, feels wildly insufficient. But some families are reluctantly willing to take what they can get. Although I will say others, like this woman — whose son became addicted to opioids after being prescribed oxycontin as a high school student — are furious that this is what it’s come to.
We want our voices heard, not interpreted by the court like they have been. I don’t want somebody saying that I love — I’m so happy with the settlement as I hear at practically every hearing. I’m a mom, I’m not happy with any of this, and I know hundreds of moms that aren’t either and families.
John: Exactly. For some families of victims, the opportunity to have their voices heard is priceless, which is to say, a fuck of a lot more than $48,000. Some have even called in to court only to be told it wasn’t the right forum. One woman called in to the bankruptcy hearing and said, “I lost my brother tragically at the tip of the epidemic in 2012. I would like to speak in memory of my brother.” To which the judge replied, “I hold hearings on what is scheduled before me. I don’t think that this is the proper forum to do this.” And the thing is, he’s right. But this also may be the last forum these families have to be heard. Look, it might be true that this is the best deal we can get under our current system. But the fact that’s the case doesn’t speak to well to this deal, or, indeed, the system itself. And if you’re thinking, “well, the Sacklers are paying so much already, what more do you want?” I’m not sure that’s the right way to think about this. Because I’d argue that when your family’s company recklessly sold a product as damaging as oxycontin, the question might not be, “how many billions is it right for you to pay?” It’s “how many billions is it right for you to keep?” And I would argue “no billions.” And I’m afraid it gets one step worse, because the way this settlement is structured, it’s actually hurting the Sacklers even less than you might think. That $4.3 billion they’ve agreed to pay is spread out over nine years, with the largest payments coming toward the end of that period, which means they could make that money up in interest and investments and never have to touch the principal. In fact, when the Sacklers are done paying in 2030, they will probably be richer than they are today. So I guess the answer to “we’re rich? For how long?” Is “don’t worry, forever, David, because it seems that’s how the fucking system works.” Unfortunately, when it comes to accountability for the Sacklers, this is probably it. Because while, technically, the could still be criminally charged, nobody expects that to happen. And it’s just infuriating that things are set to end so comfortably for a family that’s made so much at the expense of so many. Although I will say, there is one tiny positive here. And that’s that Purdue and the Sacklers have always heavily valued secrecy. But this deal requires the creation of an online public repository that will eventually contain 30 million documents including deposition videos and the Sacklers’ company emails. Which is undeniably good. But even with that, let’s admit, we’re not getting anything approaching justice here. And the Sacklers, in sparing no expense, have successfully bought their way out of this problem. Well, not no expense. Because again, despite spending millions on lawyers, and even creating a website filled with legal propaganda, they still somehow couldn’t scrape up the $2,500 required to buy the dot-com for it. And the reason I happen to know exactly how much it costs is because that’s how much we spent to buy it. It’s true: we bought judgeforyourselves.com, and I know that it does absolutely nothing to even the scales here. But it does gives me the tiniest bit of comfort to imagine it might irritate the Sacklers just a bit to know that when people go to that site in the future, this is what they’ll see.
Hi, it’s me. The real Richard Sackler. Welcome to the premiere source of information on the Sackler family that you can find on the internet. It’s called judgeforyourselves.com! But you gotta get the dot-com! [Laughs] what kind of fucking idiot would set up an important website and not buy the dot-com? I dunno! I dunno! Anyway, if you want the truth, you’ve come to the right place. So click around, okay? Get a sense of what my terrible family has done. You know, maybe we’ll throw in some make-up tidbits. I don’t know. Maybe how to make a great pesto chicken. Anyway, there’s some great buttons that you press around and you’ll get there somehow. Anyway, best of luck to you. All right. Bye-bye.
John: Thank you, Richard Sackler. This new website lets you “judge for yourselves” whether the Sacklers got off too easy — which they did. On it, you can see Richard Sackler’s full deposition, all of our episodes about the opioids crisis, and there’s even a link that will eventually direct you to the document repository the moment it’s launched. Also, because the families of those impacted by the Sacklers haven’t always been heard, there are some excerpts on the website of what some of them wanted to say. All of this will be up as long as we own the domain. And this is at least something the Sacklers can’t throw their dirty money at and make go away. Which is not to say that it isn’t for sale at all, Sackler family. It’s available for a price. Let’s say $10 billion.
That’s our show. Thanks so much for watching. See you next week. Good night! ♪ ♪
Hey! Me again! Richard Sackler! Listen, the documents aren’t out yet. I wish they were, but they’re not. What are you going to do? Keep checking back, all right?
