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."
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Dec/05/images/ads/current/castlemanor_sda_FINANCIAL_2017.png)
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]
|
![](../images/120523PIX/health17.jpg)
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
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Dec/05/images/ads/current/graue_lda_preowned_120423.jpg) 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.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2023/Dec/05/images/ads/current/napa_sda_HFH_2023.png) |