Supreme Court Appears Divided Over Purdue Opioid Settlement
The complex Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case is the focus of many news outlets, with the Supreme Court's position appearing split on the matter of protecting the Sackler family. The impact of the case on payouts to victims, and future bankruptcy suits are under the legal spotlight.
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Appears Torn During Purdue Opioid Settlement Arguments
The Supreme Court on Monday seemed torn about both the merits and the legality of a proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would allocate billions of dollars to help ease the nation’s opioid crisis, but also shield the family that owns the company from future lawsuits. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked tough questions of lawyers from the Justice Department, which opposes the plan, and attorneys for Purdue and the vast number of parties that agreed to the deal — seeing it as the best hope of ending years of legal disputes and recovering at least a portion of their claims against Purdue and its owners, the Sackler family. (Barnes and Ovalle, 12/4)
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Appears Split Over Opioid Settlement For Purdue Pharma
Questions from the justices reflected why the deal has drawn intense criticism in a dispute that pits money against principle. Under debate was the practical effect of unraveling the agreement, painstakingly negotiated for years for victims and families who have urgently sought settlement funds, and broader concerns over whether releasing the Sacklers from liability would free them from further scrutiny over their role in the opioid crisis. A decision in the case could also have consequences for similar agreements resolved through the bankruptcy system that have been structured to insulate a third party from liability. (VanSickle, 12/4)
The Boston Globe:
Mass. Families Watch SCOTUS Oral Arguments In Purdue Case
“I don’t feel like [the Sacklers] deserve to be protected, but I hate to see families and the communities wait forever for a settlement,” said Heather Mick-Carito of Boston, who lost her son to an overdose in 2016. “This case could drag on and people are dying waiting for the money.” ... “Why should they get the discharge that usually goes to a bankrupt person once they’ve put all their assets on the table, without having put all their assets on the table?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. (Serres, 12/4)
In related news about the opioid epidemic —
Stat:
Broad Opioid Addiction Bill To Go Before Senate Committee
The Senate health care committee will consider a sweeping bill next week meant to combat the opioid epidemic, according to four lobbyists and a congressional aide familiar with the legislation. The proposal would reauthorize a number of programs first created by the SUPPORT Act, an addiction-focused bill that Congress first passed in 2018. Many of those programs’ authorizations expired earlier this year, however, leading addiction treatment advocates to fret that lawmakers — and specifically the committee’s chairman, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — no longer view the issue as a priority. (Facher and Cohrs, 12/4)
