[ad_1]
At least 2,700 lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of claims have been filed against Purdue since 2014, when the opioid epidemic began to escalate. The plaintiffs cover a wide spectrum, including 48 states, local governments, tribes, hospitals, individuals, and monitors of babies born with opioid withdrawal symptoms, all of which have been devastated and financially exhausted by opioids.
In more recent years, individual Sacklers have been named in an increasing number of cases.
about two years agoPurdue filed for bankruptcy restructuring and these lawsuits were automatically stopped. However, the Sacklers did not file for bankruptcy, even though they insisted that they also benefit from the expected liability exemptions for their companies.
The issue of the release of Sacklers and other third parties is at the center of resistance to the bankruptcy plan currently being pursued by nine states, including Maryland, Washington, and Connecticut. The District of Columbia, the federal Department of Justice, and the U.S. Board of Trustees have participated in the appeals, along with a program that monitors bankruptcy cases at the Department of Justice, as well as some Canadian local governments and First Nations.
Under current law in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judge Drain’s court is located, a judge can evict Sacklers and other third parties who have not filed for bankruptcy. However, generally speaking, the problem is not solved.
Other federal circuits prohibit it. The question has been addressed by members of Congress, and if Judge Drain approves the plan, it can be appealed by those who object. The hammer questions raised by lawyers have so far not only aimed to raise questions about the plan, but also to provide a basis for such objections.
Alain Delaquérière contributed to the research.
[ad_2]
Source link