|
 The following details next steps for Purdue and potential hurdles as
it moves closer to exiting bankruptcy.
What is in the revised deal?
Under the new settlement, the Sacklers will pay between $5.5 and $6
billion to a trust that will be used to pay the claims of opioid
creditors, including states, victims of addiction, hospitals, and
municipalities.
The Sacklers have denied wrongdoing, but expressed "regret" that
OxyContin played a role in the opioid crisis.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain must approve the settlement and
will consider the matter at a hearing on Wednesday.
The deal replaces a previous $4.3 billion agreement, which was
upended on appeal after nine attorneys general argued that the
Sacklers should not receive sweeping protection from current and
future opioid lawsuits as part of the deal.
Does the settlement protect the Sacklers from future lawsuits?
Not directly.
The Sacklers have said in court testimony and filings that a
settlement is predicated on them being shielded from opioid-related
lawsuits.
But these sweeping legal protections must first be written into a
Chapter 11 plan of reorganization and approved by a bankruptcy
judge.
To do this, Purdue must overcome the December ruling concluding that
the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release
non-bankrupt parties, like the Sacklers, from litigation.
Purdue is appealing that decision to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals, and will make oral arguments in that court on April 25.
Purdue filed its briefs on Feb. 11, and opposing papers are due on
March 11.
Do creditors need to vote on the new deal?
Purdue may have to ask creditors to vote on the new settlement, even
though they already voted to support the previous $4.3 billion deal.
Purdue has argued that no one is worse off under the new deal and
the bankruptcy judge could conclude that a new vote is not
necessary.
[to top of second column] |
 A new vote would be expensive
and time consuming, and there is no guarantee
that Purdue could maintain the broad support it
achieved the first time around.
Who might oppose the new settlement?
The Department of Justice's bankruptcy watchdog
has consistently opposed the use of bankruptcy
law to grant the kind of sweeping legal
protections sought by the Sacklers, who are not
bankrupt themselves. The DOJ has opposed
Purdue's appeal in the 2nd Circuit, and its
written arguments are due on March 11.
The DOJ did not participate in the negotiations
that led to the new Sackler settlement, and
declined to comment when asked whether the
agreement would change its position in the 2nd
Circuit appeal.
Other states also could attempt to upend the new
settlement before Tuesday's 7pm ET deadline.
Other creditors, including individual victims,
may also object. Seventeen
states, including Florida, West Virginia and Ohio, have already
objected, saying in court papers that the latest Sackler settlement
gives too much money to the states that negotiated it, through a
$277 million "side deal" that will not be shared with other states.
The objecting states argued that they are receiving a lower
percentage of the opioid abatement money than they would have under
the $4.3 billion deal. The new settlement violates a bankruptcy
principle that similarly-situated creditors must be treated equally,
according to the states' objections.
Other creditors may object as well, including individual victims of
the opioid crisis, who will be given a platform to speak before the
bankruptcy court approves the deal. A group of Canadian
municipalities and tribes is also fighting Purdue's appeal in the
2nd Circuit.
(Reporting by Dietrich Knauth; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Bill
Berkrot)
[© 2022 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
 |
