Exploring the potential outcome of a multi-billion dollar settlement in the opioid crisis and its implications for victims and responsible parties. The controversial Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case and the attempt to find accountability and compensation for victims. The Supreme Court's hearing of the government's appeal against the opioid settlement, and concerns about future lawsuits and justice for victims. The Supreme Court's skepticism towards the government's argument and concerns about fund division and compliance with bankruptcy law. Discussion of the Supreme Court case on the opioid settlement and the ongoing fighting in the Gaza Strip.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Supreme Court is considering the legality of a settlement that would grant immunity to the Sackler family, the owners of Purdue Pharma, from future civil lawsuits over the opioid crisis.
The controversial deal proposed in the bankruptcy court system to resolve the opioid crisis case raises concerns about the fairness of the division of money and the blocking of future lawsuits against the Sackler family.
Deep dives
The Supreme Court Case on Opioid Crisis Settlement
The Supreme Court hears a case regarding the settlement of thousands of lawsuits against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family over the opioid crisis. The case focuses on how to resolve the claims in bankruptcy court, where a controversial deal has been proposed. The deal offers a victim fund, with the Sacklers contributing part of their fortune and obtaining immunity from future civil lawsuits. However, the government argues that the deal is not in the public interest and prevents victims from having their day in court. The Court is divided on the issue, with different perspectives on what justice means in this case.
The Mechanism Behind the Opioid Crisis Deal
The bankruptcy court system has been used to craft a deal in the opioid crisis case. This mechanism allows all parties involved to be brought into bankruptcy court and find a solution. However, the deal is faced with controversy, as critics argue it stretches the bankruptcy code and blocks future lawsuits. The Sackler family, who took billions of dollars out of Purdue Pharma before its bankruptcy, benefits from the deal without fully participating in bankruptcy. The fairness of the division of money and the victims agreeing to the deal are raised as concerns.
Considerations in Approving the Opioid Crisis Deal
The approval of the opioid crisis deal is at stake, as the Supreme Court considers whether the deal can move forward. The justices' opinions are divided, with some skeptical of the government's arguments against the deal. Supporters argue that the deal is crucial for victims to receive compensation and for funds to be allocated to fighting the opioid crisis. The fairness and justice of the deal, the extent of Sackler's participation, and the blocking of future claims are key points of discussion in the case.
The opioid epidemic has been one of the biggest public health disasters in generations. The drug company at the heart of the crisis, Purdue Pharma, maker of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, agreed to a multibillion-dollar deal to settle thousands of claims against it — but that agreement would also grant the family behind the company, the Sacklers, immunity from additional civil lawsuits.
Justices are now set to rule whether that settlement was legal. Abbie VanSickle, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times, explains what a decision either way could mean for the victims and for the people responsible.
Guest: Abbie VanSickle, a Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times.
Background reading:
What to know about the Purdue Pharma case before the Supreme Court.