I believe Harrington v. I'm not going to pretend to understand the complex bankruptcy issues at Purdue Pharma LP. What I can tell you is that Judge Kavanaugh is very, very angry. Beyond the nuances of the legal issues, Justice Kavanaugh has repeatedly expressed sympathy and concern for those harmed by the opioid crisis. Some highlights include:
Today's decision is legally wrong and has devastating consequences for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families.
Of course, many Americans have a deep animosity toward the Sackler family.
Opioid victims and their families have been deprived of hard-earned relief. And communities devastated by the opioid crisis have been deprived of funds needed to prevent and treat opioid addiction. As a result of the court’s decision, each victim and creditor receives something essential, like a lottery ticket for future recovery for (at most) some of them. And as the bankruptcy court explained, there is no good reason to believe that without a discharge for non-debtors, victims or state or local governments will be able to recover anything. I respectfully but firmly disagree.
Opioid victims and future victims of mass torts will suffer greatly in the aftermath of today's unfortunate and destabilizing decisions. Only Congress can now resolve the chaos that will ensue. The court's decision will cause too much harm to too many people, so Congress cannot just sit idly by without at least studying the issue carefully. I respectfully disagree.
I am reminded of the common W. Bushism that Justice Kavanaugh often repeats. We should be on the sunrise side of the mountain, not the sunset side.
For good measure, Kavanaugh cited several times a summary of opinions from the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Bishops' Conference, both of which had bankruptcy issues. And he emphasizes how much bipartisan support there is behind this agreement.
Since then, more victims and creditors have joined in. Now, all 50 states have signed on to the plan. The lineup before this court is significant. On one side of the case are tens of thousands of opioid victims and their families; more than 4,000 state, city, county, tribal and local government agencies; and more than 40,000 hospitals and health care providers. They all urge the court to support this plan.
Justice Kavanaugh also included a table of contents for his dissenting opinion, which was about twice as long as the majority opinion.
To explain this objection for the reader, Part 1 (pages 5-18) discusses why nondebtor discharges are often appropriate and necessary, especially in mass tort bankruptcies. Part 2 (pages 18-31) explains why nondebtor discharges are appropriate and necessary in the Purdue bankruptcy. Part 3 (pages 31-52) addresses the court’s objections and why I respectfully disagree with them. Part 4 (pages 52-54) summarizes.
I'm not sure if I've seen anything like this before.
In another universe, during last night's debate, the candidates would have mentioned that this decision had an impact on the opioid crisis.