Decision may cause Purdue's reorganization plan to unravel, potentially forcing the family to negotiate better terms or renew efforts for a settlement
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote opinion for 5-4 majority, stating nothing in bankruptcy code authorizes such protections for non-debtors without their consent
Sacklers sought greater relief than bankruptcy discharge normally affords in settlement fund contribution
Supreme Court rejects multibillion-dollar opioid settlement protecting Sackler family from future lawsuits
The case involved Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, and its leaders who produced and promoted highly addictive drug during opioid crisis that claimed over 645,000 lives since mid-1990s
In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has rejected a multibillion-dollar settlement related to the nation's opioid crisis that would have shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits. The court ruled that bankruptcy judges do not have broad power to arrange mass settlements including protections for non-debtors without their consent.
The case involved Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and its leaders who produced and promoted a highly addictive drug during an opioid crisis that has claimed over 645,000 lives since the mid-1990s. The Sacklers had agreed to contribute $6 billion to the settlement fund if they would be protected from future lawsuits.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority, stating that the Sacklers sought greater relief than a bankruptcy discharge normally affords and that nothing in bankruptcy code authorizes it. The decision may cause Purdue's current reorganization plan to unravel, potentially forcing the family to negotiate better terms or renew efforts for a settlement.
The families of those lost in the opioid crisis expressed shock and sadness after the Supreme Court's decision, but also a resolve to keep fighting. The court's ruling may set a precedent for future bankruptcy cases involving mass tort litigation and third-party defendants.
This article is based on information from multiple sources including CNN, Yahoo News, PBS Newshour, and NBC News. All facts have been verified to ensure accuracy and completeness.
The Supreme Court rejected a settlement that would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the opioid epidemic but also shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority, stating that the Sacklers sought greater relief than a bankruptcy discharge normally affords and that nothing in bankruptcy code authorizes it.
The decision may cause Purdue's current reorganization plan to unravel, potentially forcing the family to negotiate better terms or renew efforts for a settlement.
Congress should resolve whether third parties can be shielded from future lawsuits, according to Gorsuch.
Accuracy
]The Supreme Court rejected a settlement that would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the opioid epidemic but also shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits.[
The decision may cause Purdue’s current reorganization plan to unravel, potentially forcing the family to negotiate better terms or renew efforts for a settlement.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(90%)
The article contains several instances of emotional language used by individuals who have lost family members to opioids. While this language is understandable given their circumstances, it does not constitute a logical fallacy. However, the author does make an appeal to authority when quoting Edward Neiger's statement that the opioid epidemic is 'the biggest health care crisis of our time.' This statement is not inherently false or illogical, but it does carry more weight due to Neiger's expertise and position as an attorney representing victims of the opioid epidemic. Therefore, I am scoring this article a 90.
The Supreme Court rejected a settlement that would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the opioid epidemic but also shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a 5-4 majority, stating that the Sacklers sought greater relief than a bankruptcy discharge normally affords and that nothing in bankruptcy code authorizes it.
The case dealt with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and its leaders who produced and promoted a highly addictive drug during an opioid crisis that has claimed over 645,000 lives from 1999 to 2021.
Accuracy
The decision may cause Purdue’s current reorganization plan to unravel, potentially forcing the family to negotiate better terms or renew efforts for a settlement.
The US Supreme Court has put an end to a popular bankruptcy maneuver
Accuracy
The US Supreme Court rejected a settlement that would have sent billions of dollars to treatment programs and victims of the opioid epidemic but also shielded the Sackler family from future lawsuits.
The Supreme Court rejected a mass settlement related to the nation’s opioid crisis worth an estimated $10 billion.
The Supreme Court rejected a mass settlement related to the nation’s opioid crisis worth an estimated $10 billion.
, The justices ruled that a bankruptcy judge does not have broad power to arrange mass settlements including protections for people who are not bankrupt.
, Justice Gorsuch said that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that effectively discharges claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.
, The Sacklers, owners of Purdue Pharma, had denied wrongdoing but agreed to contribute $6 billion to the settlement fund if they would be protected from future lawsuits.
, Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in 2019 facing thousands of lawsuits alleging its marketing of OxyContin led to an opioid epidemic causing more than half a million deaths since the mid-1990s.
Accuracy
]The settlement would have paid victims, hospitals, states, and others[
The Supreme Court has taken aim at the ‘administrative state’ in their latest rulings.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took the unusual step of reading her opinion from the bench, expressing her disappointment that the court didn’t bring clarity and certainty to a tragic situation.
The conservative majority has been consistent in trying to rein in what they call the administrative state, specifically in environmental law and regulatory agencies.
The Supreme Court ruled that the SEC’s use of internal panels for deciding civil claims about securities fraud violated the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
The bankruptcy agreement between families and states regarding opioid epidemic funds was blocked by the Supreme Court because third parties cannot be shielded from civil lawsuits in this way according to Justice Gorsuch’s interpretation of bankruptcy law.
Accuracy
The Supreme Court has taken aim at the 'administrative state' in their latest rulings.
The court allowed emergency care abortions to continue in Idaho while the law is challenged.
