I will not pretend to understand the complex issues involved in bankruptcy. Harrington vs. Purdue Pharma LP What I can tell you is that Judge Kavanaugh is very, very angry. Nuances of the legal issues aside, Justice Kavanaugh has repeatedly expressed sympathy and concern for those harmed by the opioid crisis. Some highlights include:
Today’s decision is legally wrong and has devastating consequences for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families.
To be sure, many Americans have deep animosity toward the Sacklers.
Opioid victims and their families are being deprived of hard-earned relief. And communities devastated by the opioid crisis are being deprived of funds needed to prevent and treat opioid addiction. Under the court’s decision, each victim and creditor will receive essentially a restitutionary reward for future recovery for at most a few of them. And as the bankruptcy court explained, without a non-debtor release, there is no reasonable reason to believe that victims or the state or local government will recover anything. I respectfully but firmly disagree.
Opioid victims and future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly as a result of today’s unfortunate and unsettling decision. Only Congress can resolve the chaos that will follow. The court’s decision will cause too much harm to too many people, and Congress cannot afford to sit idly by without at least carefully studying the issue. I respectfully disagree.
I am reminded of the common W. Bushism that Judge Kavanaugh often repeats: We should be on the sunrise side of the mountain, not the sunset side.
To be clear, Kavanaugh included several quotes from amicus briefs from the Boy Scouts and the Conference of Catholic Bishops, each of which has had bankruptcy issues. And he emphasizes how much bipartisan support there is behind this agreement.
Since then, more victims and creditors have joined in. All 50 states have now signed on to the plan. The lineup in front of this court is significant. On one side of the story are tens of thousands of opioid victims and their families, more than 4,000 state, city, county, tribal and local government agencies, and more than 40,000 hospitals and health care facilities. They all urge the court to uphold the plan.
Justice Kavanaugh also included a table of contents for his dissent that was about twice as long as the majority opinion.
To explain these objections to the reader: Part I (pages 5-18) discusses why non-debtor releases are often appropriate and necessary, especially in mass tort bankruptcies. Part II (pages 18-31) explains why non-debtor releases are appropriate and necessary in the Purdue bankruptcy. Part III (pages 31-52) addresses the Court’s objections and why I respectfully disagree with them. They are summarized in Part IV (pages 52-54).
I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen anything like this before.
In an alternate universe, during last night’s debate, the candidates would have mentioned this decision as having implications for the opioid crisis.
