In March 2022, a federal bankruptcy court in New York became a platform for victims of the opioid overdose epidemic to express their pain, anger, and loss caused by Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. While the court hearing was meant to mark the culmination of Purdue’s bankruptcy filing, the legal battle continues, leaving victims awaiting justice. The Supreme Court’s pending review of Purdue’s bankruptcy case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., adds further uncertainty. However, it is crucial that relief is not further delayed. The Sackler family, who did not file for bankruptcy themselves, have the power to establish a voluntary fund to compensate those harmed by Purdue’s actions, offering closure to those who have waited years for justice.
For decades, the Sackler family played a significant role in Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin. The aggressive marketing tactics that drove the widespread use of this long-acting opioid have been linked to the devastating opioid overdose epidemic that has claimed over 500,000 lives in the United States since 2000. The onslaught of lawsuits against Purdue compelled the company to file for bankruptcy in 2019, temporarily halting legal proceedings and enabling a restructuring plan to repay creditors. This plan also released individual Sackler family members from future civil lawsuits in what is known as a “non-consensual third-party release.” However, the legality of such releases remains disputed among bankruptcy courts and federal circuit courts, underscoring the need for greater uniformity and reform in bankruptcy law.
Purdue’s actions have made the Sacklers one of the wealthiest families in the United States, with an estimated collective worth of $11 billion. It is reported that the family withdrew nearly $11 billion from the company starting in 2008. While Purdue faced criminal liability and settled civil allegations, no member of the Sackler family has faced criminal charges related to the marketing of OxyContin. The Department of Justice announced Purdue’s guilty plea to multiple felonies in October 2020, resulting in the dissolution of the company and a substantial $6 billion fine. However, these resolutions did not assign fault to any individual Sackler family member. The extensive damage caused by Purdue’s marketing practices spurred thousands of individuals to file personal claims against the company, culminating in the Supreme Court review that now stands as the final hope for justice.
Over 100,000 individual plaintiffs await the Supreme Court’s decision on Purdue’s bankruptcy case, as it will determine the compensation they receive for the harm they suffered. Paradoxically, victims find themselves in a challenging position: to secure any form of compensation, they must agree to shield the Sackler family from future civil liability. This trade-off leaves victims with little choice but to accept an imperfect settlement. While not all individual claimants support the Department of Justice’s petition for Supreme Court review, the ultimate resolution remains uncertain, leaving victims in limbo.
The proposed Purdue bankruptcy plan allocates a fund of $700 million to $750 million to compensate individuals with personal injury claims. If the Supreme Court approves the plan, victims can expect to receive amounts ranging from $3,500 to $48,000. However, this fund, while substantial to some, pales in comparison to the vast Sackler family fortune and the immense devastation caused by the opioid epidemic. The Sacklers have the ability to establish their own fund to compensate those affected by Purdue’s actions, offering a genuine path to relief and accountability. Unfortunately, their refusal to acknowledge responsibility and their desire for absolution from future civil litigation hinder such progress. As Connecticut Attorney General William Tong aptly stated, “No settlement will ever come close to addressing the magnitude of suffering and harm caused by Purdue and the Sackler family.”
The opioid crisis demands not just individual accountability but systemic change. The lack of consistency among bankruptcy courts and circuits underscores the need for meaningful reform in bankruptcy law. The Nondebtor Release Prohibition Act of 2021, introduced in the 117th Congress, aimed to prohibit non-consensual third-party releases in bankruptcy cases. Unfortunately, the bill failed to advance beyond the committee stage. The pending Supreme Court case provides an opportunity for the court to establish uniformity and set a precedent, bringing clarity to the issue of third-party immunity in bankruptcy proceedings. Simultaneously, it serves as a reminder that comprehensive and lasting reform is imperative to prevent the recurrence of similar crises in the future.
Achieving justice and relief for the victims of the opioid crisis remains an uphill battle. The Supreme Court’s pending review of Purdue’s bankruptcy case offers hope, but the need for comprehensive reform in bankruptcy law and the Sackler family’s voluntary establishment of a compensation fund is paramount. The families and communities impacted by this crisis deserve more than mere financial settlements; they deserve recognition, healing, and lasting change.