Skip to main content

%1

Supreme Court Appears Split Over Opioid Settlement for Purdue Pharma

Submitted by jhartgen@abi.org on

The Supreme Court justices seemed divided yesterday over a fiercely contested bankruptcy settlement for Purdue Pharma that would funnel billions of dollars into addressing the opioid epidemic in exchange for shielding members of the wealthy Sackler family from related civil lawsuits, the New York Times reported. The U.S. Trustee Program, an office in the Justice Department, had challenged the deal, saying that it violated federal law by guaranteeing such wide-ranging legal immunity for the Sacklers even as they themselves had not declared bankruptcy. Questions from the justices reflected why the agreement, which pits money against principle, has drawn intense scrutiny to start. Under debate was the practical effect of unraveling the settlement, painstakingly negotiated for years, and broader concerns over whether releasing the Sacklers from liability should be allowed. “The opioid victims and their families overwhelmingly approve this plan because they think it will ensure prompt payment,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said. He asked why the government was pushing to end a tactic, known as third-party nonconsensual releases, that has figured in settlements approved over “30 years of bankruptcy court practice.” The lawyer for the government, Curtis E. Gannon, acknowledged the tension, but he argued that the U.S. trustee “has been given this watchdog role” and that a ruling for the government would not foreclose an opioid deal with the Sacklers. Although the question before the court was a narrow one — whether the Bankruptcy Code allowed such nonconsensual third-party waivers — the deal’s effect on a public health crisis that has left tens of thousands of people dead was on full display. While Justice Kavanaugh and others repeatedly questioned what any ruling would mean for victims of the opioid crisis and their families, others asked what consequences there would be for other settlements, including sexual abuse lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church, that have included this release of liability.

U.S. Supreme Court Split over Government Liability for Credit Report Errors

Submitted by ckanon@abi.org on
U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared to be divided over whether the federal government can be sued over errors related to consumer credit reports as they considered a case involving a Pennsylvania man who accused an Agriculture Department agency of making mistakes that hurt his credit status, Reuters reported. The justices heard arguments in an appeal by President Joe Biden’s administration of a lower court’s ruling that a legal doctrine called sovereign immunity does not shield the U.S. government from liability in lawsuits concerning credit-reporting inaccuracies. The administration is seeking to block plaintiff Reginald Kirtz's lawsuit against the Rural Housing Service, an agency that furnishes loans to help lower-income Americans get housing in rural regions. Kirtz brought the suit seeking monetary damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Questions posed by the justices indicated they were split over the matter. Kirtz has said his loans were repaid in full, but that the government lender and a separate private lender continued to wrongly report that his accounts were past due, even after he complained about the discrepancies. These false reports were then passed along to credit-reporting agency TransUnion and damaged Kirtz's creditworthiness, according to Kirtz. The Biden administration argued that the suit should be dismissed under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. At issue is whether Congress waived sovereign immunity in the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Michigan Judge Orders Stalled Edenville Flood Lawsuit to Proceed

Submitted by ckanon@abi.org on
A Michigan judge lifted a stay last week on a lawsuit brought by victims of catastrophic mid-Michigan flooding in 2020, ordering the state to file its first answer in the three-year-old case before the end of November, MLive.com reported. Court of Claims Judge Douglas Shapiro ordered the case — filed in 2020 as multiple separate lawsuits alleging that state regulatory decisions contributed to the disastrous failure of the Edenville and Sanford dams — to move toward trial, and sharply criticized the state’s posture in his ruling. The lawsuits, led by plaintiff David Krieger, claim that the state shares blame for the disaster after allowing former Edenville Dam owner Boyce Hydro to raise water levels in Wixom Lake. The reservoir gushed into the Tittabawassee River and inundated downstream properties in May 2020 after the dam collapsed following three days of rain. The torrent flooded downtown Midland and caused upwards of $209 million in damage. About 10,000 residents were forced to temporarily evacuate. Flooded property owners and insurers have alleged “inverse condemnation,” claiming the decisions made by the state departments of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) and Natural Resources (DNR) damaged their property without providing compensation. The state has moved to dismiss the case by arguing it is shielded by governmental immunity, however Shapiro and other judges have ruled that immunity doesn’t apply. Flood victims who are suing the state have been unable to pursue claims against Boyce Hydro and its former owner, Lee Mueller, due to chapter 11 bankruptcy protection granted in 2020. Mueller filed for a chapter 13 bankruptcy this year.