USA —A seismic legal battle has erupted as the U.S. Supreme Court intercedes in the high-stakes Purdue Pharma saga, thrusting the opioid crisis and the Sackler family’s role into the national spotlight.
In an unexpected turn, the Court grants the Department of Justice’s stay application, halting Purdue Pharma’s US$6 billion bankruptcy settlement plan and its immunity shield for the Sacklers against lawsuits linked to the opioid epidemic.
As the nation holds its breath, a December 2023 hearing looms large to determine the boundaries of accountability within the confines of U.S. bankruptcy law.
Thursday’s pronouncement from the Supreme Court marks a dramatic twist in the Purdue Pharma narrative.
The Court’s decision not only puts a freeze on any ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against Purdue but also sets the stage for a pivotal December hearing.
At the crux of the matter lies the legality of the US$6 billion bankruptcy settlement, a pact between the Sackler family and state and local governments.
The Sacklers’ exoneration from civil lawsuits in exchange for a financial contribution faces intense scrutiny, testing the boundaries of bankruptcy protections.
Parsing the legal quandary
The heart of this legal conundrum centers on a crucial question: Do U.S. bankruptcy laws shield the Sackler family, who have not personally declared bankruptcy, from liability amidst allegations of fueling the harrowing opioid-addiction crisis?
Once the proprietors of Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers’ controversial bid for immunity hinged on their vital role in the US$6 billion settlement, a pact that carried conditions of their release from liability.
Purdue Pharma’s tumultuous journey began with its bankruptcy filing in September 2019, right on the heels of a tentative agreement with half the states to settle an array of lawsuits with a staggering US$12 billion payout.
The fulcrum of these legal proceedings is OxyContin, Purdue’s potent semi-synthetic opioid painkiller. The company’s aggressive marketing tactics amplified the opioid epidemic, triggering widespread addiction across the nation.
The anatomy of Purdue’s bankruptcy plan
Within the complex folds of its Chapter 11 filing, Purdue Pharma outlined its settlement strategy, presenting a multi-faceted approach aimed at appeasing the victims.
Central to this plan is the establishment of a new trust, earmarked primarily for the benefit of claimants, and the transfer of all company assets into this entity.
Notably, Purdue committed to providing “tens of millions of doses” of opioid overdose treatments, an attempt to ameliorate the damage wrought by its own products.
The Sackler family’s entanglement in the opioid crisis has been fraught with public scrutiny. Their appearance at a virtual hearing in December 2020 brought forth an apology to the victims, deflecting culpability onto Purdue’s management.
This came shortly after Purdue’s admission of guilt, pleading to three criminal charges related to the crisis.
David Sackler, the heir to the family’s legacy, revealed their moral imperative to combat the opioid epidemic in August 2021.
However, the family stood resolute, vowing not to surrender billions unless legal protections are afforded.
A multi-front battle
This legal mess reached a crescendo in August 2021 when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved Purdue’s bankruptcy plan, ushering in a new trust structure while sidelining the Sacklers.
Critics argue that this maneuver shields the family from future liabilities associated with the opioid catastrophe.
On a parallel front, the Department of Justice took center stage, filing an appeal in September 2021 to challenge the very bankruptcy plan that now rests on the precipice of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
As the nation awaits the December hearing, the Supreme Court’s intervention promises a watershed moment in the contentious saga.
For all the latest healthcare industry news from Africa and the World, subscribe to our NEWSLETTER, and YouTube Channel, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn, and like us on Facebook.
