The Supreme Court grappled with the complex bankruptcy reorganization of Purdue Pharma, the opioid manufacturer, which includes a provision shielding the Sackler family from future liability.
Justices expressed doubt about the bankruptcy court's authority to release the Sacklers from potential legal claims but hesitated to disrupt the multibillion-dollar deal offering immediate relief to opioid victims. The case, involving the nationwide harm from the opioid crisis linked to Purdue's actions, is no ordinary bankruptcy proceeding.
Protesters outside the court rallied against the Sacklers, chanting "Sackler money, blood money." The proposed deal involves the Sacklers paying around $6 billion in exchange for immunity from future lawsuits, part of a more extensive settlement addressing opioid-related claims. Purdue, which profited significantly from OxyContin, faced increased scrutiny for its aggressive marketing tactics amid the opioid epidemic.
The Biden administration opposes additional claims release, citing potential unfairness to future plaintiffs. Some justices raised constitutional concerns, emphasizing the violation of rights for non-consenting plaintiffs. However, bankruptcy courts' historical approval of such plans was noted. Plaintiffs supporting Purdue include municipalities and 60,000 affected individuals, emphasizing the urgent need for life-saving funds. Canadian municipalities and Indigenous First Nations object to the settlement.
The Sackler family, who reaped billions from Purdue, still supports the settlement, warning of significant litigation risks if the deal is annulled. The court's decision holds implications for addressing the opioid crisis's aftermath and the accountability of those involved in Purdue's actions.
