What the Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear the Purdue Pharma Case Means
New York TimesAug 09, 2023
SCOTUS Rejects Purdue Pharma Settlement
story
Image copyright: Alex Wong/Staff/Getty Images News via Getty Images
The Facts
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled Thursday that the Sackler family, who owns the Oxycontin-maker Purdue Pharma, cannot make a settlement agreement that includes legal protections for the family.
The Sacklers agreed to pay opioid crisis victims up to $6B over 18 years and $4.5B in the first nine years. A US Dept. of Justice (DOJ) watchdog, however, said the provision offering legal liability protection to the family was an improper use of the bankruptcy system.
The Spin
Narrative A
While delaying compensation to victims is not ideal, this ruling is a clear and objective analysis of bankruptcy law, which does not allow individual company owners to place themselves behind the protective shields of a corporate bankruptcy settlement. If the Sackler family wishes to shield themselves from future personal lawsuits, they will have to declare bankruptcy as individuals.
Narrative B
This ruling not only misinterprets bankruptcy law but it delays compensations for victims dating back to the 1990s. After releasing this lethally addictive drug in 1996, the Sacklers' marketing schemes led to the deaths of over 240K people just between 1999 and 2009. This is a sad day for victims seeking financial justice.
