[ad_1]
Purdue Pharma LP and its owners, members of the Sackler family, are about to end their decades-long ties with opioids, seeking court approval to pay billions of dollars and leave the business that helped them get rich.
U.S. bankruptcy judge Robert Drain will begin an estimated 11-day trial on Thursday-the longest in his career-to review the company’s more than $10 billion proposal to address its addictive painkiller OxyContin Trillions of dollars in debt.
If Purdue’s plan is approved, the family will pay $4.5 billion in 9 or 10 years and basically hand over the key to the business. Almost all future proceeds will benefit states, counties, and counties severely hit by the opioid epidemic. city. In exchange, the Sacklers were spared a series of opioid-related lawsuits for life. If the settlement agreement is rejected, family members may find themselves involved in expensive litigation, which will last for several years.
Symbol of greed
The New York trial was the result of years of political pressure and public outcry against Purdue University. Critics oppose bankruptcy, saying the company is still a symbol of corporate greed. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts last week called for an immediate appeal against Purdue University’s plan, arguing that it would allow Sacklers to “avoid personal liability” by “abusing” the court, and comedian John Oliver this week published a long The 23 minutes of verbal abuse condemned leaving most of the wealth it gained from OxyContin sales to the family.
In opposition to the plan, lawyers in Washington and Oregon stated: “Purdue’s active marketing is essentially an uncontrolled experiment against the American public.” “Although the billions of dollars processed under the plan seem large and large Huge, but in the context of the opioid epidemic, they are far from enough.”
But trial observers want to see a spectacle attacking Sackler and a full debate on OxyContin’s influence on Americans, and they may be disappointed.
The judge has made it clear that he is looking forward to narrow debates and testimony about the mysterious conspiracies that often appear in the bankruptcy law, and these conspiracies make Purdue’s plan legally feasible. On Monday, Drain even said that he would “if people waste time, just chop them off.” This shows that he has no patience to spend time analyzing the wealth of Purdue University owners. They are Raymond and Mortimer Sack. The offspring of the Le brothers and the benefits of taking legal action against them.
Those who wish to disrupt Purdue’s plan have no reason to be optimistic. The voting results showed that the company’s creditors generally support the settlement. In recent weeks, long-standing dissidents such as New York and Massachusetts have given up their opposition. Although there were sufficient opportunities to do so, Drain did not express serious concerns about the legitimacy of the plan.
“If it is not confirmed, I would be shocked,” said Bruce Markle, a former bankruptcy judge and current visiting professor at Cornell University. He said that skilled bankruptcy judges tend to fully understand their concerns before confirmation hearings, while highly qualified lawyers understand how specific judges tend to rule on key issues. “What we see here are very good lawyers.”
In an email statement, Purdue emphasized the broad creditors’ support for the settlement and stated that the proposed plan complies with bankruptcy rules. The statement said: “This plan is an overwhelming demand for private and government plaintiffs against Purdue University and the Sackler family for trillions of dollars in claims. They voted for and supported it.”
A representative of the Mortimer Sackler Wing of the family declined to comment, while a representative of the Raymond Sackler Wing did not respond to a request for comment.
Nevertheless, obstacles still exist. Attorneys general from about 10 states still opposed the plan, and together with the U.S. Department of Justice’s bankruptcy supervisory agency raised their objections. The federal government itself called certain aspects of the plan unconstitutional, but did not try to stop it. Most of the debate has focused on whether the bankruptcy judge at Purdue University has the power to release members of the Sackler family from legal claims, even if they themselves did not file for bankruptcy.
The so-called unauthorized third-party release is a matter of divergence, and over the years, federal court districts have divided on when, if any, appropriate. But Purdue University judges have approved similar releases in the past, and the company will argue that they are an important part of the bankruptcy plan, which will allocate billions of dollars to treat addiction and combat opioids. Abused items.
In court documents, lawyers for the Mortimer Sackler family stated that they “confirm that if the lawsuit can be concluded, they will eventually be proven correct. But the burden of defending the lawsuit will be ruthless. The cost of defense will be huge.”
“I expect that the billions of dollars provided by my family and the Mortimer Sackler family in the proposed shareholder settlement can be used to alleviate the opioid crisis,” said David Sackler, a descendant of Raymond Sackler. A court statement submitted last week. “The alternative to shareholder settlements is litigation. I believe we have a good legal defense of claims against my family. If the shareholder settlement is not approved, my family and I will actively defend ourselves.”
The bankruptcy case is Purdue Pharma LP, 19-23649, Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains)
-With the help of Nicole Bullock.
[ad_2]
Source link