In
a surprise ruling on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen
McMahon in Manhattan found that a bankruptcy judge overstepped
his authority by approving the plan that gave the Sacklers
immunity in return for $4.5 billion for those harmed by Purdue.
The deal had been hammered out over two years by U.S. states,
local governments and others who had filed thousands of lawsuits
accusing Purdue and the Sacklers of aggressively marketing
OxyContin while downplaying its addiction and overdose risks.
The company and family members have denied the allegations.
Purdue said it will appeal McMahon's ruling, which it said would
not impact its operations but will delay or even end the ability
of states and others to receive billions of dollars.
Representatives for the Sackler family did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.
Eight hold-out states and the U.S. Department of Justice's
bankruptcy watchdog had challenged the plan in part because of
the legal protections it granted the Sacklers. The appeal
process won't end with McMahon, who encouraged the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to review her decision.
The family has come under scrutiny for withdrawing $10 billion
from Purdue between 2008 and 2017.
The Sacklers have said almost half the money went to paying
taxes, but opponents of the plan allege the withdrawals
strengthened the family's hand in bankruptcy negotiations and
gave them leverage to demand legal immunity.
Purdue has been estimated to be worth around $2 billion without
the Sackler contribution, making their participation critical.
Those involved in the case doubt a new deal could be agreed
before the appeals court weighs in, a process that could take up
to 18 months given the importance of the issue of so-called
nondebtor releases in corporate bankruptcy cases.
Ryan Hampton, who served through most of the bankruptcy as the
co-chair of the unsecured creditors committee, a key player in
the deal negotiations, said there were talks earlier this year
on a plan that excluded a Sackler contribution.
"It was almost dead on arrival," he said. "It will very hard to
negotiate something before the 2nd Circuit decides because I've
seen it live and in-person trying to negotiate a deal without a
Sackler contribution," he said.
If the plan had gone into effect, it would have started
providing funds to state and local governments and others to
address the damage caused to communities reeling from the opioid
epidemic, which has claimed 500,000 lives since 1999.
The appeals might not end at the 2nd Circuit, as Washington's
attorney general has vowed to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme
Court, a process that could add another year.
Even then, resolving the question of Sackler immunity might
require sending the entire deal negotiation back to the
bankruptcy court to start over.
There is also the possibility the Sacklers kick in more money,
something the family did during the bankruptcy process to win
over about a dozen states.
"Maybe the Sacklers put up more money and maybe the objecting
parties drop the objections and we reach unanimity," said Scott
Bickford, who represented a committee of children born dependent
on opioids, a plan supporter.
The bankruptcy court judge, Robert Drain, said he approved the
plan including immunity for the family in part because it was
unclear whether the Sacklers could be held liable and uncertain
if judgments against them could be collected.
The family has used trusts organized in the Bailiwick of Jersey,
in the Channel Islands between England and France, among other
jurisdictions, to hold their wealth, according to McMahon's
opinion.
Bickford said any plan without Sackler funds leaves Purdue with
less money and victims with difficult legal claims.
"Essentially everyone takes a haircut and then we pursue the
Sacklers for 100 years," he said.
(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by
Alexia Garamfalvi and Daniel Wallis)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|