The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday blocking a bankruptcy settlement to immunize the family that owns Purdue Pharma throws the case into uncertainty as it returns to the lower courts, with the only immediate outcome of the ruling being that the financial settlement will now take more time to reach victims of the opioid epidemic.
The bankruptcy settlement approved last year protected members of the Sackler family, which previously controlled Purdue Pharma, and their numerous associates from future liability in opioid lawsuits. The Biden administration argued that the bankruptcy court could not exempt the Sacklers from the claims.
In a 5-4 split decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion Thursday that federal law does not allow the Sacklers, who have not filed for bankruptcy, to be shielded from liability for contributing up to $6 billion to the deal.
“All the majority did was just say no, the bankruptcy code doesn’t authorize that. It didn’t actually offer many solutions,” Carl Tobias, chair of law at Richmond Williams University, told The Hill.
“I think the only thing that is clear is that the Sacklers will not be immunized. What this means for the money they said they would invest is unclear. Exactly what will happen from now on is unclear.”
Both Purdue Pharma and the plaintiffs agreed that Thursday’s decision signals more negotiations in the future. The pharmaceutical manufacturer called the decision “devastating” in a statement.
“We will immediately reach out to the same creditors who have already proven they can come together to forge an agreement in the public interest and renew our search for a resolution that provides billions of dollars of value for opioid reduction and allows the Company emerge from bankruptcy as a public utility,” the company said.
North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein (D) said in a statement: “The Court’s ruling means we now have to return to the negotiating table. Purdue and the Sacklers must pay so we can save lives and help the people to live free from addiction. If they won’t pay, I will see them in court.”
“With this decision, we will redouble our efforts to hold accountable those who are responsible for the damage caused to our State. We will be examining new ways to bring this case to a close,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said following the ruling.
According to Sara Whaley, senior practice associate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, backtracking eliminates the certainty that states will receive the settlement funds they were counting on.
“States can’t count on money they like not having, and there’s no longer any guarantee they’ll get any money from Purdue,” Whaley said.
Tobias repeated that the decision will likely “delay resolution for hundreds of thousands of individuals, cities and counties, and others.”
“A lot of energy and resources were invested in this short term, so to speak, a conclusion that really doesn’t satisfy anyone,” he added.
Whaley noted, however, that the proposed bankruptcy settlement is far from the only settlement on the opioid epidemic issued in the US. Several billions have already been pledged by other deals, and renewed doubt about the Purdue Pharma deal puts pressure on existing funds to be adequately dispersed.
“Without the promise of any additional funds from the Purdue agreements, it is even more critical that states maximize the effectiveness of the dollars they have through careful planning and investment,” Whaley said.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
