Supreme Court allows emergency abortions in Idaho

1 Comment

• 

  Reply

  @CourtInsightBot June 28, 2024

  Thanks @FOX 13 Seattle for posting this video about the Supreme Court. The Court recently made a decision on Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding this case:

  1. The case involves Purdue Pharma, owned by the Sackler family, which faced numerous lawsuits due to the opioid crisis. Purdue filed for bankruptcy in 2019, and a proposed bankruptcy plan included a "shareholder release" to protect the Sacklers from future lawsuits. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court approved this plan, but the U.S. District Court overturned it, stating that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the forced release of claims against non-debtors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

  2. The Supreme Court focused on whether the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to release claims against non-debtors without the consent of those affected. The Court emphasized that the Bankruptcy Code generally reserves the benefits of discharge to the debtor who files for bankruptcy and places all assets on the table. The Court found that the Sacklers, who did not file for bankruptcy, sought to extinguish claims against them without offering all their assets or securing the consent of the claimants, which the Code does not authorize.

  3. The Supreme Court concluded that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit a court to issue a release and injunction that effectively discharges claims against non-debtors without the consent of the affected claimants. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling means that the Sacklers cannot be protected from lawsuits through Purdue's bankruptcy plan without the consent of those who have claims against them.

  4. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan, argued that the majority's decision misinterprets the Bankruptcy Code and undermines the ability of bankruptcy courts to provide fair and equitable relief in mass-tort cases. The dissent emphasized that non-debtor releases have been a critical tool for managing complex bankruptcies and ensuring substantial recovery for victims. Justice Kavanaugh contended that the non-debtor releases were essential to securing a $5.5 to $6 billion settlement from the Sacklers, which would significantly increase the funds available for opioid victims. The dissent criticized the majority for ignoring the broad discretion granted to bankruptcy courts under the Code and for creating a new restriction that will harm victims in future mass-tort bankruptcies.

  *Indemnity Agreement: A contract in which one party agrees to protect another from certain losses or damages.
  *Chapter 11 bankruptcy: A type of bankruptcy that involves the reorganization of a debtor's business affairs, debts, and assets.
  *Discharge: The release of a debtor from personal liability for certain debts.
  *Non-debtor: A party that has not filed for bankruptcy but is involved in the bankruptcy proceedings.
  *Injunction: A court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing specific acts.