| 
		US Supreme Court torn over Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [December 05, 2023] 
		By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung 
 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday struggled 
		over whether to approve OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy 
		settlement, voicing concern the deal would shield its wealthy Sackler 
		family owners from lawsuits over their role in a deadly opioid epidemic 
		while also worrying that scuttling it could harm victims.
 
 The court heard arguments in an appeal by President Joe Biden's 
		administration of a lower court's ruling upholding the settlement for 
		the Stamford, Connecticut-based company.
 
 Purdue's owners under the deal would receive immunity in exchange for 
		paying up to $6 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by states, 
		hospitals, people who had become addicted and others who have sued the 
		company over allegedly misleading marketing of its powerful pain 
		medication OxyContin
 
 At issue in the case is whether U.S. bankruptcy law allows Purdue's 
		restructuring to include legal protections for the members of the 
		Sackler family, who have not filed for personal bankruptcy.
 
 Some justices seemed to convey skepticism toward the Biden's 
		administration stance.
 
 "Bankruptcy courts for 30 years have been approving plans like this," 
		conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Justice Department lawyer 
		Curtis Gannon, while asking why the Supreme Court should decide such 
		plans are "categorically inappropriate."
 
 
		
		 
		But some justices also seemed wary of extending protections to the 
		Sacklers under bankruptcy law when the family members themselves were 
		not debtors under the plan.
 
 "In some ways, they're getting a better deal than the usual bankruptcy 
		discharge," liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Gregory Garre, a lawyer 
		representing Purdue, adding that the Sacklers under the deal would be 
		"protected from claims of fraud and willful misconduct," which does not 
		happen in a typical bankruptcy proceeding.
 
 The justices in August paused bankruptcy proceedings concerning Purdue 
		and its affiliates when they agreed to take up the administration's 
		appeal of a ruling by the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals 
		upholding the settlement.
 
 Outside the court, about 50 people protested the settlement, including 
		family members of opioid victims. "Sacklers lie, people die," some of 
		the demonstrators chanted. Some held signs in memory of people who died 
		from opioids. Another sign read, "Deadliest white collar criminals - the 
		Sackler cartel."
 
		CHAPTER 11
 Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 to address its debts, 
		nearly all of which stemmed from thousands of lawsuits alleging that 
		OxyContin helped kickstart an opioid epidemic that has caused more than 
		half a million U.S. overdose deaths over two decades.
 
 [to top of second column]
 | 
            
			 
            Bottles of prescription painkiller OxyContin, 40mg, 20mg and 15mg 
			pills, made by Purdue Pharma L.D. sit on a counter at a local 
			pharmacy, in Provo, Utah, U.S., April 25, 2017. REUTERS/George 
			Frey/File Photo 
            
			 Purdue estimates that its bankruptcy 
			settlement, approved by a U.S. bankruptcy judge in 2021, would 
			provide $10 billion in value to its creditors, including state and 
			local governments, individual victims of addiction, hospitals and 
			others who have sued the company.
 The Biden administration and eight states challenged the settlement. 
			All the states dropped their opposition after the Sacklers agreed to 
			contribute more to the settlement fund.
 
 In upholding the settlement in May, the 2nd Circuit concluded that 
			federal bankruptcy law allows legal protections for non-bankrupt 
			parties like the Sacklers in extraordinary circumstances. It ruled 
			that the legal claims against Purdue were inextricably linked to 
			claims against its owners, and that allowing lawsuits to continue 
			targeting the Sacklers would undermine Purdue's efforts to reach a 
			bankruptcy settlement.
 
 Garre cautioned the justices that blocking the bankruptcy deal could 
			ultimately leave many victims of the opioid crisis empty-handed by 
			subjecting the Sacklers to a flood of lawsuits.
 
 "The billions of dollars that the plan allocates for opioid 
			abatement and compensation will evaporate, creditors and victims 
			will be left with nothing and lives surely will be lost," Garre 
			said.
 
 Kavanaugh suggested that the argument put forth by Gannon for the 
			administration seemed to signal that the views of the opioid victims 
			and their families do not matter.
 
 Gannon said the Sackler family members withdrew billions from Purdue 
			before agreeing to contribute up to $6 billion to its opioid 
			settlement. The deal conflicts with "the nuts and bolts" of 
			bankruptcy law, Gannon said, because it "permits the Sacklers to 
			decide how much they're going to contribute."
 
 Although the vast majority of claimants who participated in a vote 
			on whether to approve the deal viewed it favorably, some justices 
			expressed concern about depriving those opposed to the deal from 
			suing over their injuries.
 
 "We don't normally say that a non-consenting party can have its 
			claim for property eliminated in this fashion without consent or any 
			process of court," conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch told a lawyer 
			for the debtors.
 
 (Reporting by John Kruzel and Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
 
			[© 2023 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.]This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. 
			
			 |