The Supreme Court rejects a nationwide opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma
The Supreme Court rejects a nationwide opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma
The Supreme Court has rejected a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would've shielded Sackler family members who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids but also would've provided billions of dollars to combat the epidemic.
After deliberating more than six months, the justices in a 5-4 vote blocked an agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims. The Sacklers would have contributed up to $6 billion and given up ownership of the company but retained billions more. The agreement provided that the company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said “nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.”
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Can you please just tell me if it is a good thing or a bad thing please, the more I read the more I am simply confused.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, argued that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.
The Biden administration had argued to the court that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.
Okay got it
It’s both. Sort of an election dependent Schrödinger’s cat. The settlement amount was far too low in relation to the damage caused and the profits earned, so the immunity from future settlements was absurd. However, if Trump wins in the fall, there’s no way his new Project 2025 Schedule F hires will bring appropriate charges against a business doing business.
You’re not wrong. At the same time, if Trump wins, the idea that the Sacklers might get away with effectively homicide on a multi billion dollar heroin dealing scale, won’t be even in the top 100 problems. “How can we punish the guilty” will have to take a back seat to “how can I prevent the guilty from directly threatening my safety or maybe putting me in prison” for a little while.
The Sacklers should be slow-roasted over hot coals, so I am not sure how to feel about this
The current deal allowed them to avoid any criminal liability and keep all the billions they made. It just made them lose their company.
I think this ruling is good, since it opens the family up to criminal liability and possibly losing billions of dollars.
I'm kinda into the "cruel and unusual" punishment of giving them their own medicine, literally. Make them drooling messes of human beings and put them on display.
There's only one death penalty that I support. And it's deep-frying.
“The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country,” they said in a statement. “While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward.”
We tried to buy our way out because we’re guilty af, but failed.
I agree with another poster that I’m not sure how I feel about this. If this results in them taking greater responsibility for the harm they’ve done, great. If this ends up letting them off easier, travesty.