The , Supreme Court , on Thursday rejected a mass settlement related to the nation’s opioid crisis that would have paid an estimated$ 10 billion to victims, hospitals, states and others, and shielded the Sackler family from further liability.
By a 5- 4 voting, the justices ruled that a debt judge does not have large power to negotiate a mass settlement of thousands of claims that includes protections for people who are not destitute.
The magistrates were split in an unusual manner.  , Justice , Neil M. Gorsuch , spoke for the lot, while , Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices , Sonia Sotomayor,  , Elena Kagan , and , Brett M. Kavanaugh , dissented.
” Our just right work is to interpret and apply the rules as we find it, and nothing in existing law authorizes the Sackler discharge”, Gorsuch said.
” We hold only that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a discharge and order that, as part of a plan of reform under Section 11, properly seeks to release claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected applicants”, Gorsuch continued.
Justices , Clarence Thomas,  , Samuel A. Alito Jr. , , Amy Coney Barrett , and , Ketanji Brown Jackson , agreed.
” Today’s selection is bad on the rules and devastating for more than 100, 000 opioid victims and their families”, Kavanaugh said in protest. ” The judge’s decision rewrites the words of the , U. S.  , Bankruptcy Code and restricts the longer- established authority of bankruptcy courts to design fair and equitable relief for mass- tort victims. As a result, opioid patients are nowadays deprived of the large financial treatment that they lengthy fought for and finally secured after years of litigation”.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are both conservatives, but they often disagree. Gorsuch often seems determined to follow the law as he sees it regardless of the consequences, while Kavanaugh is more likely to focus on the practical impact of the court’s ruling.
The Sacklers, owners of the Purdue Pharma company, had denied wrongdoing but agreed to contribute$ 6 billion to the settlement fund if they would be protected from future lawsuits.
The case has been closely followed not just because of the opioid settlement but also because of the use of bankruptcy laws to settle other mass lawsuits involving the , Boy Scouts of America , and some Catholic dioceses.
Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in 2019 facing thousands of lawsuits alleging its marketing of OxyContin as a nonaddictive pain relief pill had triggered an opioid epidemic that led to more than a half- million deaths since the mid- 1990s. In the decade prior to the bankruptcy, the company had distributed about$ 11 billion to members of the Sackler family and their offshore accounts.
Their lawyers maintained that more than half of this amount was paid in taxes.
But the scale of the damage and the liability for OxyContin was extraordinary. A bankruptcy court later put a hold on new lawsuits, while the pending claims against Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers were estimated to seek in total more than$ 40 trillion.
A coalition of creditors, including victims, hospitals, local and state governments and tribal nations, negotiated a settlement that was expected to pay out about$ 10 billion. Most of the funding — about$ 6 billion — came from the Sacklers.
In 2021, a bankruptcy judge approved the settlement and described it as the “only reasonably conceivable” way to fairly resolve the mass of lawsuits. Without the money from the Sacklers, he said the company would be liquidated, leaving most of the creditors with nothing.
While more than 95 % of the creditors said they approved the deal, including all 50 states, the Biden administration’s bankruptcy trustee opposed it. He did so because the settlement shielded the Sacklers from any further or future liability.
In Harrington vs. Purdue Pharma, the trustee argued that the Sacklers were not bankrupt and therefore, cannot take advantage of the shield provided by a bankruptcy settlement.
Last year, the , Supreme Court , put the settlement on hold to consider that argument.
___
© 2024 Los Angeles Times
Distributed by , Tribune Content Agency, LLC
