The Supreme Court is divided over Purdue Pharma’s opioid settlement
Certain cases that reach the Supreme Court put the nine justices in an uncomfortable position. Harrington v Purdue Pharma appears to be one of those disputes. It revolves around the $6bn bankruptcy settlement agreed upon by Purdue, the company responsible for America’s opioid crisis. The outcome may rely less on legal interpretations and precedents and more on fair judgments.
The oral arguments for the case were presented on December 4th. One thing is clear: the justices are determined to do right by the victims of the opioid epidemic. They have little sympathy for the Sacklers, the family who owned Purdue when it introduced OxyContin in 1996 and profited greatly from the addictive painkiller, despite evidence of its destructive nature. As lawsuits piled up, the Sacklers drained approximately $11bn in profits from the company, with about half going to taxes. In 2019, a depleted Purdue, valued at around $1.8bn, filed for bankruptcy.
The Supreme Court’s task is to determine whether the bankruptcy agreement, which was initially invalidated by a district court but later reinstated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, should be upheld. According to the plan, the Sacklers would contribute $6bn (97% of their profits after taxes) to an estate that would be divided among states, victims, and others in exchange for immunity from further civil lawsuits, including fraud claims.
2023-12-05 10:15:28
Link from www.economist.com
rnrn
