The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a significant blow to efforts to combat the opioid epidemic, as it rejected a proposed settlement with Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin. The decision has halted a potential payout of over $70 million to the state of Wisconsin, significantly impacting its fight against opioid addiction.
The rejected settlement had aimed to bring tens of millions of dollars to Wisconsin to support the state’s efforts in tackling opioid addiction. However, a majority of justices objected to a provision in the bankruptcy plan that would have shielded members of the Sackler Family, who owned Purdue Pharma, from personal liability. This provision was a sticking point that ultimately led to the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the proposed settlement.
The since-scuttled deal would have seen the Sackler family funding most of the proposed $8 billion settlement, which could have provided crucial financial support to state and local governments in their battle against the opioid epidemic. With the rejection of the settlement, the question of accountability and financial responsibility in addressing the devastating impact of opioid addiction is brought to the forefront.
Furthermore, the rejected settlement has sparked discussions about the powers of bankruptcy courts in the United States. Critics from the creditor-debtor sector have long expressed concerns about the expansive authority of the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, arguing that they often utilize ambiguous legislative drafting and their inherent powers as courts of equity to the detriment of creditors. This includes instances where bankruptcy courts arbitrarily reduce the amount owed to certain classes of creditors, a practice known as “cramdown.”
The decision by the Supreme Court to reject the Purdue Pharma settlement resonates with individuals and organizations advocating for justice and accountability in addressing the opioid epidemic. There is widespread concern about the potential shielding of the Sackler family from personal liability, especially considering the devastating toll of opioid addiction on communities across the United States. Calls for transparency, accountability, and justice have been amplified, with demands for criminal charges against members of the Sackler family gaining momentum.
In a show of solidarity and determination, people from across the United States, who have lost loved ones to the opioid epidemic, rallied at the Department of Justice in Washington DC, urging Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy AG Lisa Monaco to bring criminal charges against members of the Sackler family. Their impassioned plea underscores the pressing need for accountability and justice in addressing the far-reaching impact of opioid addiction.
The rejection of the Purdue Pharma settlement by the Supreme Court serves as a critical juncture in the ongoing efforts to confront the opioid epidemic. As conversations about the powers of bankruptcy courts and the pursuit of accountability continue, the implications of this decision reverberate across the nation, shaping the landscape of legal, financial, and public health responses to the opioid crisis.
