The Legal Drama Behind the American Opioid Crisis

OxyContin, a drug containing fentanyl that was developed by Purdue Pharmacy, was first introduced into the market in the mid 1990s. The launch of this drug was despite evidence showing its highly-addictive nature. Since then, many patients who were prescribed opioids became addicted, with more than 300,000 deaths since 2000 due to an overdose on prescription opioids - according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Currently, Purdue Pharmacy has proposed a bankruptcy plan to settle these lawsuits with a compensation of $6bn contributed by the family that owns Purdue Pharmacy, the Sackler family, as well as the family relinquishing control of the company. The current slew of lawsuits against Purdue Pharmacy comes after the company pleaded guilty in 2007 for misbranding OxyContin.[1] However, this plan includes a deal to provide the Sackler family with immunity from being sued in the future on this matter.

The legal issue which the Supreme Court is now deliberating on is the legality of shielding individuals or entities from future lawsuits when they have not filed for bankruptcy themselves. While the company filed for bankruptcy in 2019, the owners of the company, the Sackler family, did not. The plan to shield the Sacklers from lawsuits when they have not filed for bankruptcy themselves is something that the US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, noted as something the “bankruptcy court did not have the authority” to do, to “deprive victims of the opioid crisis of their right to sue the Sackler family”.[2].

This plan was initially approved by the Court of Appeals, who noted that the prevention of future lawsuits against the Sacklers was necessary to “ensure the fair distribution of the settlement money”,[3] which is up to $6bn. But the Office of the U.S. Trustee, challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision and took it to the Supreme Court. They believe that bankruptcy courts do not have the authority to approve a reorganisation plan that takes away victims’ rights to sue those who are not directly part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

The responses of those who have been affected by the opioid crisis caused by Purdue Pharmacy is mixed. Some think that the plan will be beneficial in helping states expand addiction treatment, as well as providing compensation from the loss they have faced. One mother, whose son died from a drug overdose in 2017, told the BBC that “individuals would not stand a chance in hell to get anything out of the Sacklers if [the deal] doesn’t happen”.[4] On the other hand, others oppose, saying that states already have sufficient money which came from settlements with other pharmaceutical companies, drug distribution companies, and pharmacy chains.[5] They believe that the deal only benefits the Sacklers, who get to keep the billions of wealth they have accumulated over the years.

Some justices have expressed their opinions, with conservative Justice Brett saying that “bankruptcy courts for 30 years have been approving plans like this” and wondering why the Supreme Court should decide on such matters; however, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said that the deal would protect the Sacklers from “claims of fraud and wilful misconduct”, which is not something that usually happens in such bankruptcy proceedings.[6]

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of the Sackler family, it could mean that the bankruptcy courts could be a way for business and individuals to free themselves from civil liability and prevent future lawsuits against them.[7] This case is therefore significant in upholding the integrity of the law, and preventing those who should be held liable from escaping responsibility.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/04/purdue-pharma-sacklers-oxycontin-supreme-court-bankruptcy-deal

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/04/purdue-pharma-sacklers-oxycontin-supreme-court-bankruptcy-deal

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/12/03/purdue-pharma-supreme-court-bankruptcy-settlement/

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67618641

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/12/03/purdue-pharma-supreme-court-bankruptcy-settlement/

[6] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-supreme-court-set-review-purdue-pharma-bankruptcy-settlement-2023-12-04/

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/article/purdue-pharma-supreme-court.html