> Harrington objected to the release of additional claims against the Sacklers, saying it would be unfair to potential future plaintiffs.
> Purdue criticized Harrington’s role, saying that groups representing thousands of plaintiffs have signed on to the settlement, which could not have happened without the Sackler family contribution.
The concern is the set of current plaintiffs is incomplete and those plaintiffs who are missing are going to be hurt by this and the bankruptcy judge over this decision does not have the authority to approve this deal despite the current set of plaintiffs wanting it.
People keep misreading this, or maybe just looking at the headline and getting the wrong impression.
The news in that piece is that NY discovered the transfers at all. The transfers themselves are a decade old. The payments to the Sacklers from Purdue are from 2008-2016 but the lawsuits only date to 2018. All of this is in the article if you read it.
I.e., no self-payments after lawsuits became material threat.
https://www.reuters.com/business/judge-tosses-deal-shielding...
reply