Supreme Court favors bankruptcy deal for OxyContin’s pharma company
Nearly all Supreme Court Justices Uncomfortable with Undoing Controversial Bankruptcy Deal
Nearly all of the U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared uneasy about overturning a highly debated bankruptcy agreement involving the company responsible for OxyContin, a drug widely believed to have sparked the opioid crisis.
The high court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, specifically focusing on the validity of a $6 billion bankruptcy deal that shields the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, from civil claims made by victims and their families.
The bankruptcy agreement faced immediate challenges but was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The Biden administration is now urging the court to review the deal, arguing that it is illegal because it prevents about 3% of victims who did not consent to the agreement from suing the Sackler family.
U.S. Trustee William Harrington argues that the bankruptcy deal sets a dangerous precedent, allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to exploit the system and evade mass-tort liability. He believes it undermines public confidence in the bankruptcy system.
However, during the oral arguments, nearly all the justices raised pointed questions regarding the impact on the victims and their families if the deal were to be undone.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concern about the uncertainty of liability and recovery, stating that rejecting the plan might not necessarily result in more money being available from the Sacklers in the future. Justice Elena Kagan also emphasized the overwhelming support for the deal among claimants who fear they would receive nothing if the provision is overturned.
Moreover, Pratik Shah, a lawyer representing some of the victims, argued that without the bankruptcy deal, the majority of victims would receive no compensation. He highlighted the enormous gap between the estimated claims of $40 trillion and the limited funds available from the Sacklers.
While 97% of victims agreed to the non-consensual release, 3% disagreed, and less than 50% responded to inquiries about the agreement. Some dissenting victims believe the Sackler family should be held directly accountable for their losses and suffering and desire their day in court.
If the deal remains intact, the Sackler family, who did not personally declare bankruptcy, will retain billions of dollars from their personal fortune.
What potential consequences do the justices foresee in overturning the approved bankruptcy deal in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma?
Thousands of plaintiffs who allege that the company’s marketing of OxyContin contributed to the opioid epidemic. While the Supreme Court’s decision is yet to be announced, the justices’ discomfort with undoing the controversial bankruptcy deal has raised eyebrows and sparked a heated debate.
The proposed bankruptcy deal, which has been approved by a lower court, would establish a trust to compensate those affected by Purdue Pharma’s actions. Under the agreement, the Sackler family, who amassed significant wealth through their ownership of the company, would contribute a substantial portion of their fortune towards the trust. In exchange, they would receive legal immunity, protecting them from further civil claims related to the opioid crisis.
During the oral arguments, the majority of the justices expressed their concerns about the potential consequences of overturning the bankruptcy deal. They worried about the precedent it would set and the impact it could have on future bankruptcy cases. Some justices also raised the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting the decisions made by lower courts.
However, the justices’ uneasiness with the deal did not go unnoticed. Critics argue that the agreement provides unjust protection to the Sackler family, allowing them to escape accountability for their alleged role in fueling the opioid crisis. They argue that the deal undermines justice and fails to provide adequate compensation for the victims of Purdue Pharma’s actions.
Supporters of the bankruptcy deal contend that it is a fair and necessary resolution to a complex legal issue. They argue that the Sackler family’s contribution towards the trust will provide much-needed funds to those affected by the opioid crisis, including individuals struggling with addiction and communities burdened by the costs of treatment and prevention. They also emphasize the importance of reaching a swift resolution that allows for the equitable distribution of funds before further delays hinder the process.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma will have far-reaching implications, not only for the victims of the opioid crisis but also for future bankruptcy cases involving controversial agreements. The court’s discomfort with undoing the bankruptcy deal highlights the delicate balancing act between justice and legal precedence. As the nation continues to grapple with the devastating effects of the opioid epidemic, the decision in this case will undoubtedly shape the future of accountability for those involved.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this complex issue, it is imperative for them to carefully consider the interests of the victims, the principles of justice, and the long-term impact of their decision. While there may be discomfort in undoing the controversial bankruptcy deal, it is crucial to prioritize the well-being of the affected individuals and communities. The Supreme Court’s ruling must provide a fair, just, and comprehensive resolution that addresses the concerns of both critics and supporters of the bankruptcy deal. Only then can justice truly be served in this crucial case.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...