-
The deal represents an increase over a previous settlement rejected by the Supreme Court because it protected members of the wealthy Sackler family from civil lawsuits even though they were not in bankruptcy.
-
In a 5-4 decision, the justices ruled that the multibillion opioid settlement inappropriately protected the Sackler family.
-
Under the agreement, McKinsey must establish a fund to reimburse insurers, private benefit plans and others for some or all of their prescription opioid costs.
-
The justices struggled to decide whether to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to the multibillion dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy deal -- a deal meant to compensate victims of OxyContin.
-
In exchange for giving up ownership of drug manufacturer Purdue Pharma and for contributing up to $6 billion to fight the crisis, members of the wealthy Sackler family would be exempt from any civil lawsuits
-
Supreme Court's decision to review the controversial bankruptcy deal involving the maker of Oxycontin means the settlement will remain on hold at least through December.
-
A federal appeals court reversed a 2021 ruling that found bankruptcy court judges did not have the authority to shield from civil lawsuits members of the Purdue owners.
-
One lawsuit was filed by eight Northwest Florida counties and four cities, and another by Miami-Dade and two South Florida cities. They allege that McKinsey & Company “played an integral role in creating and deepening the opioid crisis.”
-
The deal, hashed out over weeks of intense negotiations, raises the amount paid by the Sacklers by more than $1 billion. In exchange, the family members win immunity from civil opioid lawsuits.
-
A federal judge has overturned a bankruptcy settlement worth more than $4 billion that granted immunity from opioid lawsuits to members of the family who owns the company that makes OxyContin.