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
Login to reply
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