This post was originally published on this site
https://i-invdn-com.investing.com/news/LYNXMPEB0E0CQ_M.jpg
During the hearing, some justices questioned the appropriateness of the settlement, especially considering the Sacklers’ involvement and the significant legal protections it affords them. Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the unusual nature of the deal, noting that it protects the Sacklers from fraud and willful misconduct claims, which is atypical in standard bankruptcy proceedings. The case is pivotal in determining how far U.S. bankruptcy law can extend in restructuring deals, including shielding non-debtor parties from litigation.
Outside the Supreme Court, protests underscored the public outcry against the settlement. Demonstrators, including family members of opioid victims, expressed their opposition to the Sacklers receiving legal immunity. The protest highlights the deep emotional and social impact of the opioid epidemic and the contentious nature of Purdue Pharma’s proposed settlement.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously upheld the settlement, recognizing the extraordinary circumstances of the case and the intertwined legal claims against Purdue and its owners. However, the Biden administration and several states have challenged this decision, leading to the Supreme Court’s involvement. The outcome of this case will significantly impact not only the future of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family but also set a precedent for how bankruptcy law is applied in cases involving public health crises.
This article was originally published on Quiver Quantitative
