As Purdue Pharma LP and its creditors pushed the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to bless liability releases granted to members of the Sackler family who own it, a skeptical Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said it was the owners themselves who created the necessity in the first place by withdrawing billions of dollars from the business before its bankruptcy.

During oral arguments on the permissibility of nondebtor, third-party releases in bankruptcy, Justice Jackson took issue with Purdue’s position that the liability shield, which was granted in exchange for $6 billion in contributions from the Sacklers to the estate, was necessary to implement a settlement with opioid victims and confirm the company’s Chapter 11 plan.

Her specific concern related to the Sacklers’ offshoring of more than $10 billion of assets from Purdue in the years before it filed for Chapter 11, and then seeking a release of liability without themselves filing for bankruptcy and avoiding the need to lay their assets “on the table.”

“[My] understanding is not only are they not doing that, but most of the assets we’re talking about were originally in the company, and they actually took the assets from the company, which started the set of circumstances in which the company now doesn’t have enough money to pay the creditors,” Justice Jackson said.

Her point boiled down to the theory that the Sacklers are buying releases from Purdue with Purdue’s own money. She asked Purdue’s counsel why this situation would be allowed to occur even if the court doesn’t outright bar third-party releases.

Gregory G. Garre of Latham & Watkins LLP, representing Purdue, said nearly half the money transferred to the Sacklers in recent years went to cover tax liability, and that of the remaining 60%, the $6 billion being contributed to the plan amounts to 97% of the funds.

He also said the location and structure of trusts that hold most of the assets would present difficulties in trying to recover funds for the benefit of creditors.

“If this settlement doesn’t go forward then these victims would likely, even if they prevailed on their claims, present serious issues about being able to collect on them at the end of the day,” Garre argued.

But Justice Jackson didn’t buy that argument, saying the difficulty in collecting was a result of the Sacklers’ own actions in taking the money overseas.

“It’s not like by operation of law it’s necessary to [grant these releases],” she countered. “It is necessary to do this because the Sacklers have taken the money and are not willing to give it back unless they get this condition.”

Among the criteria necessary for non-consensual, third-party releases to be approved is a showing that they are necessary to the restructuring. Justice Amy Coney Barrett chimed in with support for Justice Jackson’s point, saying that the percentages of assets used to pay taxes and then to pay for the release contribution are important figures in the argument, but that the money still came from the company.

Purdue filed for bankruptcy in September 2019 to handle its liability for the opioid crisis arising from its sale and marketing of the powerful painkiller OxyContin. Its Chapter 11 plan was confirmed two years later and included releases for the Sacklers, which the bankruptcy court found were necessary to implement the restructuring. The Sacklers contributed $4.325 billion under the original plan. When a New York federal judge overturned the plan, finding the releases to be impermissible, the Sacklers increased their contributions to up to $6 billion.

On further appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the district court ruling, and the Office of the U.S. Trustee sought review by the high court.

Purdue is represented by Gregory G. Garre, Charles S. Dameron and Eric J. Konopka of Latham & Watkins LLP and Marshall S. Huebner, Benjamin S. Kaminetzky, Marc J. Tobak and Garrett L. Cardillo of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

The official committee of unsecured creditors is represented by Mitchell P. Hurley, Arik Y. Preis, Sara L. Brauner, Pratik A. Shah, Z.W. Julius Chen and Lide E. Paterno of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Petitioner U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington is represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Brian M. Boynton, Curtis E. Gannon, Masha G. Hansford, Michael S. Raab, Michael Shih, Sean R. Janda, Lawrence H. Fogelman, Peter Aronoff and Benjamin H. Torrance of the U.S. Department of Justice and Ramona D. Elliott, Nan Roberts Eitel, P. Matthew Sutko, Beth A. Levene and Sumi K. Sakata of the Executive Office of the U.S. Trustee.

The case is William K. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., case number 23-124, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/personal-injury-medical-malpractice/articles/1773229?nl_pk=029cff45-637f-44e3-babf-75563f8e0bfd&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=personal-injury-medical-malpractice&utm_content=2023-12-05&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=2?copied=1

The post How The Sacklers Took $10B out of Purdue Pharma and Used It to Buy Themselves Immunity from Liability for the Opioid Epidemic appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

“A daughter of the American southwest, Sandra Day O’Connor blazed a historic trail as our nation’s first female justice,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Friday. “She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education.”

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/personal-injury-medical-malpractice/articles/945241?nl_pk=029cff45-637f-44e3-babf-75563f8e0bfd&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=personal-injury-medical-malpractice&utm_content=945241&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=0?copied=1

The post Rest In Peace, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Purdue Pharma LP Chapter 11 plan that contains as a key feature the settlement with the Sackler family for approximately $6 billion that, in return, prevents any other creditor from suing the family.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/personal-injury-medical-malpractice/articles/1716196?nl_pk=029cff45-637f-44e3-babf-75563f8e0bfd&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=personal-injury-medical-malpractice&utm_content=2023-09-01&read_main=1&nlsidx=0&nlaidx=13?copied=1

The post Sackler Immunity and the Purdue Pharma Settlement appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

In Federal court, this noble path just got a little easier, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court overturned precedent from a minority of circuits that required litigants to raise legal issues in a motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial, through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. When a “purely legal” issue is resolved at the summary judgment stage, it is preserved for appellate review without a Rule 50 motion, the court said.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/personal-injury-medical-malpractice/articles/1601078?nl_pk=029cff45-637f-44e3-babf-75563f8e0bfd&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=personal-injury-medical-malpractice&utm_content=2023-05-26&nlsidx=1&nlaidx=7?copied=1

The post Lawyers Who Make Law appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

Today, an artificial intelligence firm made a curious offer for any lawyer or person with a case coming up at the Supreme Court to allow an AI to feed them lines, promising anyone who goes through with it will receive $1 million in return.

Here is the story of the company trying to eliminate lawyers and judges with artificial intelligence,

AI Company Offers $1 Million For Robot Lawyer To Argue Before The U.S. Supreme Court

The post Robot Lawyers and Judges? appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

The most important office, and the one which all of us can and should fill, is that of private citizen.
— Louis D. Brandeis, former Supreme Court associate justice

The post Today’s Quote appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.

So begins the satirical and brilliant defense of Anthony Novak before the Supreme Court of the United States. Judges sometimes have a go at wry humor when they write opinions. Not as often, lawyers might bravely venture into humor – intentionally or otherwise. Rarely do you see the kind of full-tilt onslaught of parody used by The Onion’s lawyers in their ‘friend of the court’ offering.

The Onion files this brief to protect its continued ability to create fiction that may ultimately merge into reality. As the globe’s premier parodists, The Onion’s writers also have a self-serving interest in preventing political authorities from imprisoning humorists. This brief is submitted in the interest of at least mitigating their future punishment.

This tradition has modern practitioners like David Sedaris, Carl Hiassen, PJ O’Rourke, Hunter S. Thompson, and Mike Royko. The tradition dates all the way back to Jonathan Swift, Moliere, and the ancient Greeks.

And no argument before SCOTUS on free speech would be complete without reference to pornography precedent. From the Brief,

The point of all this is not that it is funny when deluded figures of authority mistake satire for the actual news—even though that can be extremely funny. Rather, it’s that the parody allows these figures to puncture their own sense of self-importance by falling for what any reasonable person would recognize as an absurd escalation of their own views. In the political context, the effect can be particularly pronounced. See Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53–55 (1988); see also Falwell v. Flynt, 805 F.2d 484, 487 (4th Cir. 1986) (Wilkinson, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing) (“Nothing is more thoroughly democratic than to have the high-and-mighty lampooned and spoofed.”).

I also love that one of the few citations in the brief is to a case involving the country music or songwriting publishing company, Acuff Rose.

And the latter portion of the Brief contains this hopeful note.

And the “reasonable reader” is “ ‘no dullard. He or she does not represent the lowest common denominator, but reasonable intelligence and learning. He or she can tell the difference between satire and sincerity.’ ” New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144, 157 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Patrick v. Sup. Ct., 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 883, 887 (Ct. App. 1994)). “Nor is the reasonable person some totally humorless drudge who cannot perceive the presence of subtle invective.” Patrick, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 887. Instead, the reasonable reader’s perspective “is more informed by an assessment of her well-considered view than by her immediate yet transitory reaction,” particularly “in light of the special characteristics of satire,” which leverage that transitory reaction for rhetorical effect. Farah, 736 F.3d at 536.

Congratulations to the authors Mssr’s Stempvoort and Portinga – and The Onion – on a job well done.

Here is the link:

The Onion’s SCOTUS Brief

The post Yes, The Onion’s SCOTUS Brief Is Hysterical. And Brilliant. appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

Physician Liability for #OUD (Arguments in Ruan v. US)

The High Court ruled in favor of the pill mill prescribers, setting aside their 25 year prison sentences.

“After a defendant produces evidence that he or she was authorized to dispense controlled substances, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner, or intended to do so.”

A link to the story is here.

The post A SCOTUS Victory For Pill Mill Doctors appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

By abolishing longstanding legal protections, the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade serves American families poorly, putting their health, safety, finances, and futures at risk. In view of these predictable consequences, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine strongly condemn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

The post The New England Journal of Medicine: We “Strongly Condemn” Dobbs (for reasons of health care) appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.

While firearms manufacturers and dealers are shielded in part under the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which limits liability when their products are used in crimes, New York state passed a law last year designed to allow civil suits to be brought against the gun manufacturers.

Unlike politicians, trial lawyers find ways to act even when conditions are difficult.

Here is the link.

Victim of New York Subway Shooting Sues Gunmaker Glock and Parent Company

The post Victim of New York Subway Shooting Sues Gunmaker Glock and Parent Company appeared first on The Thompson Law Firm.