Frank Huntley, who raises awareness of opiate addiction with his sculpture "Pill Man," was one of the protesters who gathered at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, in December of 2021.
The judge found that the bankruptcy court doesn't have the authority to approve legal immunity for people who didn't declare bankruptcy. Judge Colleen McMahon of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling vacating the plan.
McMahon noted that Sackler family members aren't obligated to close their assets and apply them to their debts. Non-debtors do not have the right to have claims against them outside of the bankruptcy process released, because they do not have those obligations.
The judge in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement. The settlement was objected to by eight states and the District of Columbia. The US government objected to the settlement.
TheSackler Family must be held accountable.
The US Attorney General said they were pleased with the District Court's decision. The Sackler family's right to file a lawsuit was not taken away by the bankruptcy court.
The Sackler Family must be held accountable for their contribution to the ongoing opiate crisis according to California Attorney General Rob Bonta. Too many California communities have paid the price for their misdeeds and the plan would have allowed them to exchange money for lifetime immunity, which is not true accountability.
The ruling will be appealed. Steve Miller, chairman of the company that makes the pain killer, said that it would delay and possibly end the ability of the community to receive billions of dollars in value to fight the crisis. "These funds are needed now more than ever as overdose rates hit record-highs, and we are confident that we can successfully appeal this decision and deliver desperately needed funds to the communities and individuals suffering in the midst of this crisis."
Prevention, treatment, and recovery programs would be funded by the settlement money.
Advertisement
The Sacklers took $10.4 billion out of the school.
The plan provides broad releases, not just of derivative, but of particularized or direct claims, to the members of the Sackler. The judge continued.
The Sacklers were well aware that they were exposed to personal liability over the misuse of the drug when the crisis worsened. The family started withdrawing money from the school almost as soon as the papers were dry, because they were worried about how their finances would be affected. According to their own expert, the Sacklers reduced the company's "solvency cushion" by some $10.4 billion. Half of the money was invested in off-shore companies owned by the Sacklers or deposited into spendthrift trusts that could not be reached in Jersey.
>
The Sackler family members withdrew from the Board when the family fortune was secure. The following year saw the start of the discussion of the insolvency. The Sacklers offered to contribute toward a settlement if every member of the family could "achieve global peace" from all civil litigation, including litigation by Purdue to claw back the money that had been.
The settlement approved by the bankruptcy court protects all civil claims against the Sacklers that relate in any way to the operations of the company.
