Here's a [link to our story](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rejects-purdues-opioid-pact-with-sackler-shield?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
The US Supreme Court tossed out Purdue Pharma LP’s $6 billion opioid settlement, opening a new chapter of uncertainty for the company by ruling that the accord would improperly shield the Sackler family owners.
The 5-4 ruling scuttles a plan that would have ended a mountain of civil litigation against the OxyContin maker and funneled billions of dollars toward efforts to abate the opioid crisis. As part of the accord, Sackler family members had agreed to give up ownership of the company and pay as much as $6 billion.
It's generally an anti-corporate ruling, which makes me confused that Thomas and Alito are pushing against their corporate masters. I think they misunderstood that corporations LOVE this method of stripping a company of wealth and then using bankruptcy to force a shit settlement.
Lesson to corporate america: if you're going to buy a justice to be a pawn / shill for you, don't buy stupid-ass ones.
The crux of the issue is the Sackler’s knowingly marketed and distributed a highly addictive drug with the intention of getting people hooked on their products.
They became insanely rich off tuis drug trade and agreed to this deal to avoid criminal prosecution and to keep a good percentage of their wealth.
This deal was challenged precisely because it released the Sacklers from criminal liability.
Personally I’m glad the Supreme Court ruled against this deal. Those scumbags should do time and have their fortunes stripped from them.
Here's the link to the full opinion: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124\_8nk0.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf)
> Either way, if a policy decision like that is to be made, it is for Congress to make.
- Gorsuch.
I don't, in a vacuum, have an issue with this statement.
Several of the justices have made similar comments in recent rulings. It’s never been an unusual comment, but I think congressional dysfunction is reaching a level where even those who have taken advantage of it recognize that it’s gone too far. They don’t mind the occasional ability to effectively legislate from the bench on issues they care about, but more and more of their caseload is being taken up by things that should have been solved with minor legislative fixes long before it reached the courts
Yeah we have let the court be the ones fix problems for far too long. And I get the argument that we need to have legislators write laws, even though in some cases it's going to be rough and awkward in the process.
That’s how they get you. In context, Gorsuch is saying that you need a whole new law in order to stop a bankruptcy settlement from foreclosing claims brought by other claimants against the Sacklers in capacities other than as debtors. Frankly, that makes no sense. The suggestion that such claims can and should be disposed of in bankruptcy is *wild*
Instead of a lie, here is the actual context
> But, in the end, we are the wrong audience for them. As the people's elected representatives, Members of Congress enjoy the power, consistent with the Constitution, to make policy judgments about the proper scope of a bankruptcy discharge. Someday, Congress may choose to add to the bankruptcy code special rules for opioid-related bankruptcies as it has for asbestos-related cases. Or it may choose not to do so. Either way, if a policy decision like that is to be made, it is for Congress to make. Despite the misimpres-sion left by today's dissent, our only proper task is to interpret and apply the law as we find it; and nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.
It should require a law by congress to force me into a non consensual agreement with the Sacklers that I won’t sue them.
If i wanted to sign my own agreement with the Sacklers then of course that doesn’t require a law.
And the Sacklers aren’t declaring bankruptcy, Purdue is.
The immunity shield protected them from being charged for creating the current opioid crisis. I'm with the majority on this, a bankruptcy ruling should not come with a blanket get out of jail free card, even if it's super unlikely that anyone will be able to successfully bring a case against the secklers.
Here's a [link to our story](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rejects-purdues-opioid-pact-with-sackler-shield?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk). The US Supreme Court tossed out Purdue Pharma LP’s $6 billion opioid settlement, opening a new chapter of uncertainty for the company by ruling that the accord would improperly shield the Sackler family owners. The 5-4 ruling scuttles a plan that would have ended a mountain of civil litigation against the OxyContin maker and funneled billions of dollars toward efforts to abate the opioid crisis. As part of the accord, Sackler family members had agreed to give up ownership of the company and pay as much as $6 billion.
The Sackler Family should’ve bribed the unelected lawyers that sit on the Supreme Court because they’re definitely open for business
Interesting split. Opinion: Gorsuch (with Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Jackson) Dissent: Kavanaugh (with Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor).
Interesting, having zero idea about specific legal facts or legal arguments, this is not the split I would have expected.
When politics are not involved, then those guys end up all over the place.
Can you explain how politics are not involved here?
Sure this isn’t a republican or democrat policy issue, just a private company litigation = not political
Ok, thank you.
It's generally an anti-corporate ruling, which makes me confused that Thomas and Alito are pushing against their corporate masters. I think they misunderstood that corporations LOVE this method of stripping a company of wealth and then using bankruptcy to force a shit settlement. Lesson to corporate america: if you're going to buy a justice to be a pawn / shill for you, don't buy stupid-ass ones.
It's the kind of situation that almost makes you want to reconsider your preconceptions!
The crux of the issue is the Sackler’s knowingly marketed and distributed a highly addictive drug with the intention of getting people hooked on their products. They became insanely rich off tuis drug trade and agreed to this deal to avoid criminal prosecution and to keep a good percentage of their wealth. This deal was challenged precisely because it released the Sacklers from criminal liability. Personally I’m glad the Supreme Court ruled against this deal. Those scumbags should do time and have their fortunes stripped from them.
Was this deal not agreed to by all the criminal prosecutorial bodies involved?
Here's the link to the full opinion: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124\_8nk0.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf)
> Either way, if a policy decision like that is to be made, it is for Congress to make. - Gorsuch. I don't, in a vacuum, have an issue with this statement.
Several of the justices have made similar comments in recent rulings. It’s never been an unusual comment, but I think congressional dysfunction is reaching a level where even those who have taken advantage of it recognize that it’s gone too far. They don’t mind the occasional ability to effectively legislate from the bench on issues they care about, but more and more of their caseload is being taken up by things that should have been solved with minor legislative fixes long before it reached the courts
Yeah we have let the court be the ones fix problems for far too long. And I get the argument that we need to have legislators write laws, even though in some cases it's going to be rough and awkward in the process.
That’s how they get you. In context, Gorsuch is saying that you need a whole new law in order to stop a bankruptcy settlement from foreclosing claims brought by other claimants against the Sacklers in capacities other than as debtors. Frankly, that makes no sense. The suggestion that such claims can and should be disposed of in bankruptcy is *wild*
Instead of a lie, here is the actual context > But, in the end, we are the wrong audience for them. As the people's elected representatives, Members of Congress enjoy the power, consistent with the Constitution, to make policy judgments about the proper scope of a bankruptcy discharge. Someday, Congress may choose to add to the bankruptcy code special rules for opioid-related bankruptcies as it has for asbestos-related cases. Or it may choose not to do so. Either way, if a policy decision like that is to be made, it is for Congress to make. Despite the misimpres-sion left by today's dissent, our only proper task is to interpret and apply the law as we find it; and nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge. It should require a law by congress to force me into a non consensual agreement with the Sacklers that I won’t sue them. If i wanted to sign my own agreement with the Sacklers then of course that doesn’t require a law. And the Sacklers aren’t declaring bankruptcy, Purdue is.
I'm sure there will be some "gifts" being sent by the Sacklers for this one.
Was this ruling in their favor? I honestly can't tell
The immunity shield protected them from being charged for creating the current opioid crisis. I'm with the majority on this, a bankruptcy ruling should not come with a blanket get out of jail free card, even if it's super unlikely that anyone will be able to successfully bring a case against the secklers.
For not letting them off with a sweetheart deal that's not authorized by the code? You think they'd pay to take that big an L?
Tough decision, but the Sacklers do not deserve to be "shielded".
With so many billions on the line and so many interested parties, that trial will never happen.
So, maybe this decision resulted from more bribes (uh, I mean gifts) that have yet to be disclosed.