How #bankruptcy #law was bent The #Sacklers themselves did #not declare bankruptcy. Instead: 1. Purdue Pharma declared #bankruptcy 2. The #Sacklers #transferred #money into the process 3. In exchange, they demanded #permanent #legal #immunity from all current and future civil lawsuits This maneuver is called: Non-consensual third-party releases Meaning: 1. People who never agreed to the deal 2. Were still barred from suing the Sacklers Forever This is the legal equivalent of buying a #universal #eraser Again, Vietnam war level deaths every year

Replies (1)

Why this was #unprecedented Before Purdue: 1. Bankruptcy protection applied to the bankrupt entity 2. Not to wealthy owners who stayed solvent Purdue tried to: 1. Use a company’s bankruptcy 2. To shield private individuals 3. From liability for mass harm Lower courts allowed it. Why? 1. Fear that without immunity, the Sacklers would walk away 2. States wanted the money now, not litigation later 3. Victims were fragmented, exhausted, and underfunded This is #leverage , not #justice