The Supreme Court’s speedy scheduling of the case may indicate its recognition of the severity of the opioid problem. However, legal experts believe that the court’s ruling is not likely to focus on the public health crisis. Instead, it will likely narrow its focus on the liability shield, a controversial bankruptcy tactic that has been growing in popularity.
Adam Zimmerman, a mass tort law professor at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, expressed confidence that the court is keeping in mind the urgent need for resolution in order for cities, states, and individuals to determine their next steps, even if the opioid crisis is not explicitly mentioned in the opinion.
While many pharmaceutical companies have faced lawsuits over their involvement in the opioid epidemic, the Sacklers and Purdue have been central figures in the long-standing crisis. OxyContin, their flagship drug, was approved by the FDA in 1995 and significantly impacted the growing market for prescription painkillers. The company held extravagant sales conferences, during which trained pain medicine physicians falsely claimed that OxyContin had a low risk of addiction. By 2007, Purdue and three top executives had paid fines and pleaded guilty to misleading regulators, doctors, and patients about the drug’s potential for abuse, but this did not hinder Purdue’s aggressive marketing of OxyContin.
As the focus shifted to the Sacklers, who served as Purdue board members and made significant charitable donations to various institutions in exchange for renaming properties after themselves, their notoriety increased. Despite once having their name affiliated with medical schools and museums, their prominence diminished as the family saga gained attention through various media and institutions dissociated themselves from Purdue’s owners.
