All articles tagged with #sackler family
All 50 U.S. states, D.C., and four territories have agreed to a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family to resolve opioid litigation, aiming to fund addiction treatment and prevent further abuse, marking the largest settlement of its kind.
The Supreme Court will decide whether the multibillion-dollar settlement reached by Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and the Sackler family, the company's owners, is legal. The settlement would grant the Sacklers immunity from further civil lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. The ruling will have significant implications for the victims and those responsible for the crisis.
The US Supreme Court is considering a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, which may shield the Sackler family from future lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. The deal, which granted the family immunity in civil cases, has faced criticism from US officials who argue it conflicts with bankruptcy law. While some families impacted by the drug support the deal, others want the Supreme Court to overturn it and hold the Sacklers accountable. The court's ruling will have significant implications for bankruptcy law and the ability of third parties to receive immunity in such cases.
The Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma that grants the Sackler family, who owned and operated the company during the opioid crisis, broad legal protections from civil lawsuits related to their role in the epidemic. The plan, which was approved by 95% of victims, includes a provision releasing the Sacklers from civil liability in exchange for their contribution of $6 billion for abatement of the opioid crisis. The Biden administration and some victims argue that these third-party releases are not allowed under the bankruptcy code, while several Supreme Court justices expressed concerns about unraveling the settlement agreement and the impact on victims. A decision is expected by the end of June.
The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Monday regarding whether the Sackler family, who controlled OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, can use bankruptcy to shield their personal fortunes from future opioid-related liabilities. The case revolves around the power of federal bankruptcy courts to approve settlement agreements that absolve parties outside the bankruptcy of legal responsibility without the consent of litigants. The Sacklers agreed to pay $6 billion to opioid victims and governments in exchange for a release from claims, but some claimants wished to opt out of the settlement and retain their right to sue. Justices questioned whether bankruptcy laws were meant to deprive personal injury victims of their right to sue third parties not subject to the bankruptcy proceedings. A decision is expected this summer.
The US Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a controversial settlement that would grant immunity to the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, from current and future civil lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. The agreement, which would provide billions of dollars to victims of the epidemic, has received overwhelming support from those who would bring civil suits against the Sacklers. Justices questioned why they should second guess the agreement when the majority of victims approve it. The fate of the settlement is of national importance as it determines whether the Sacklers can be held accountable in court. The Supreme Court's ruling remains uncertain.
The Supreme Court justices appeared divided over a controversial bankruptcy settlement for Purdue Pharma that would shield the wealthy Sackler family from civil lawsuits related to the opioid epidemic in exchange for billions of dollars to address the crisis. The U.S. Trustee Program challenged the deal, arguing that it violated federal law by granting the Sacklers wide-ranging legal immunity. The justices' questions reflected concerns about the practical effect of unraveling the settlement and the broader issue of whether the Sacklers should be released from liability. The decision could have implications for other mass-injury settlements. A ruling is expected by June.
The US Supreme Court is divided over whether to approve Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy settlement, which would grant immunity to the wealthy Sackler family, owners of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, from lawsuits related to their role in the deadly opioid epidemic. The court expressed concerns about shielding the Sacklers while also considering the potential harm to victims if the settlement is scuttled. The case raises questions about whether bankruptcy law allows for legal protections for non-bankrupt parties like the Sacklers. Some justices expressed skepticism towards the Biden administration's opposition to the settlement, while others were wary of extending protections to the Sacklers when they themselves were not debtors. The settlement, which would provide $10 billion in value to creditors, including victims of addiction, hospitals, and governments, was approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2021 but has faced challenges from the Biden administration and several states.
The Supreme Court is divided over whether the Sackler family, known for their role in the opioid crisis, can be shielded from civil lawsuits by paying $6 billion to victims and drug treatment programs as part of a bankruptcy settlement with Purdue Pharma. The majority of victims support the settlement, but the Justice Department questions whether the Sacklers can be absolved from future lawsuits. The court's decision will determine whether blowing up the current settlement could jeopardize payouts for tens of thousands of victims and their families. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case next year.
The Supreme Court is considering a bankruptcy deal for Purdue Pharma that would provide billions of dollars to victims of the opioid epidemic while shielding the wealthy Sackler family from further lawsuits. The court's decision could have significant implications for other cases involving mass injuries and the use of bankruptcy to resolve claims. If approved, the deal would establish a precedent for granting legal immunity to third parties in bankruptcy plans, potentially freeing businesses from civil liability. However, if the court blocks this mechanism, the Sackler family would lose their protection, and the entire Purdue Pharma settlement would be at risk.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today regarding the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical company responsible for manufacturing OxyContin and fueling the opioid epidemic. The plan includes legal protections for the Sackler family, who own Purdue, shielding them from civil liability for the crisis. The bankruptcy plan was approved by 95% of victims, but several states, Canadian municipalities, indigenous tribes, and individuals voted against it due to the protections for the Sacklers. The case before the Supreme Court will determine whether non-debtor releases, like the one for the Sacklers, are allowed under federal bankruptcy law. A decision is expected by the summer and could have significant implications for future bankruptcy cases involving mass torts.
Israel expands its ground assault into southern Gaza, raising concerns for the safety of civilians. The Supreme Court will review whether the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, can be protected from future lawsuits related to the opioid crisis. Scientists are investigating a severe respiratory illness affecting dogs. Former Rep. George Santos is expelled from the House of Representatives, marking a tumultuous year for the chamber. Ukraine battles internal conflicts and the Russian army. Police arrest a suspect in the killings of four men in Los Angeles County.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments over a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would shield the Sackler family, who own the company, from civil lawsuits related to the toll of opioids. The agreement, which would provide billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic, has been put on hold due to objections from the Biden administration. The issue at hand is whether bankruptcy protection can be extended to individuals like the Sacklers who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. Lower courts have issued conflicting decisions on this matter, which has implications for other major product liability lawsuits settled through bankruptcy. The decision is expected by early summer.
The Supreme Court has blocked Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy proceedings, which included a $6 billion settlement that would have granted the Sackler family immunity from opioid-related civil claims. The court has agreed to hear arguments in December. The settlement, initially agreed upon in March, would have allowed the Sacklers to contribute to Purdue's reorganization fund in exchange for release from civil liability. The government has called the plan "unprecedented" and an "abuse of the bankruptcy system." Several states, including Ohio, expressed disappointment with the court's decision to pause the settlement.
The Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, have been granted legal immunity from all civil opioid claims related to their company in exchange for payments of up to $6 billion to plaintiffs in now-suspended lawsuits. The ruling was part of a court review of a bankruptcy restructuring plan for Purdue. The company will cease to exist, and its assets will be transferred to a newly created company, Knoa, which will manufacture opioid addiction treatment and opioid reversal medicines at no profit while continuing to make existing drugs like OxyContin. The ruling has implications for the Purdue case specifically and for owners of companies seeking bankruptcy generally.