Ellen Isaacs: A Voice of Warning Against the Opioid Epidemic
Long before Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy, before the series' "Dopesick" and "Painkiller" brought the Sackler family and devastation of the opioid crisis into Americans' living rooms, and before her son died of a drug overdose at the age of 33, Ellen Isaacs was sounding the alarm about the opioid epidemic.
Isaacs herself was prescribed OxyContin, the powerful pain killer manufactured by Purdue and promoted as "non-addictive," after undergoing surgery in the late 90s. That was around the same time her son, Ryan Wroblewski, got a prescription for the drug after injuring his back in a fall from a bridge.
Isaacs weaned herself off the drug in 2001 and became passionate about raising awareness about the dangers of opioids, all while trying to secure help for her son amid his own addiction.
Wroblewski, though, lost his battle five years ago. Isaacs said she began "vehemently" giving out Narcan, a nasal spray used to treat people experiencing an opioid overdose, and appearing on the news to demonstrate how it works.
During the course of her advocacy, a passionate activist has protested outside the Justice Department. She wrote a letter to a prominent figure urging her to strip a certain individual of her title. She rallied in a specific location where a judge oversaw a bankruptcy case and approved legal protections for a wealthy family.
On Monday, the activist is set to return to a certain place as part of her efforts to fight a specific plan and, specifically, the decision to release a particular family from civil liability. The matter is under review by a high court, with oral arguments in the case set for Monday morning.
"It's really important to me that these people get held accountable for all the people that they've harmed," the activist told CBS News. "They're criminals and they needed to be treated as such."
The Company's Bankruptcy
A certain company filed for bankruptcy protection in September 2019. Scores of entities had filed lawsuits against the company seeking damages arising from its actions, which helped fuel a specific issue. The company separately pleaded guilty in 2007 to a felony count and has paid more than $600 million in fines and other costs.
Settlement Reached in Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Case
In a landmark agreement, the Sackler family, former owners of Purdue Pharma, has agreed to contribute $6 billion over a decade to combat the opioid crisis. The settlement also includes $750 million to compensate victims, with individual payouts ranging from $3,500 to $48,000.
As part of the agreement, Purdue Pharma will restructure itself as a public benefit company, using its profits to develop products that address opioid addiction. The settlement also requires the release of millions of documents related to the case, making them public.
While the bankruptcy plan was approved by 95% of victims, some states, Canadian municipalities, indigenous tribes, and over 2,600 individuals voted against it. Their main concern was the legal protections granted to the Sackler family, which shielded them from civil lawsuits related to the opioid crisis.
Despite the opposition, a bankruptcy court in New York approved the plan in September 2021. However, the approval was challenged by the dissenting parties and the U.S. Trustee, a division of the Justice Department responsible for overseeing bankruptcy cases.
For more information, you can read the court's opinion here.
The legality of the plan's shield for the Sacklers is the main focus of the group, as it prevents even those who refused to approve the deal from pursuing claims against them. In December 2021, a federal district court rejected the plan, agreeing with the group's concerns.
Purdue and other proponents of the plan appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. While their case was pending, the District of Columbia and eight objecting states reached an agreement with Purdue and the Sacklers, increasing their proposed contribution to the bankruptcy estate by $1.75 billion. This raised their total contributions to between $5.5 billion and $6 billion.
In May, a divided 2nd Circuit panel reversed the district court's decision. Subsequently, the Justice Department requested the Supreme Court to review the appeals court's ruling and temporarily halt the bankruptcy plan. The high court agreed in August and decided to take on the case.
A division among victims
The issue at hand is whether detractors of federal bankruptcy agreements can be bound by releases that protect entities like the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves.
"The question will be, does the code need to specifically allow or specifically prohibit these types of releases?" said Anthony Casey, a law professor at the University of Chicago, in an interview with CBS News. "That's the question the court is asking."
The U.S. Trustee, represented by the Justice Department, has argued that the agreement to exempt certain individuals from civil lawsuits violates federal law. The government is urging the Supreme Court to reject the plan.
The case has divided victims of the opioid crisis and families who lost loved ones to overdoses. A large group of individuals affected by the products in question said the settlement represents a significant moment and offers the best path forward for those seeking accountability.
"Save for one personal injury appellant, the actual victims here want this plan, want the releases, and want closure, not the opportunity for endless litigation," they told the justices in a filing.
Similarly, other victims and their families have expressed support for the bankruptcy plan, stating that it provides the only viable mechanism for helping victims and addressing the opioid epidemic.
"No amount of money can bring back a beloved family member lost to addiction or undo the traumas routinely caused by opioid addiction," they said. "The confirmed reorganization plan, however, is needed — and needed now — to provide monetary relief to long-suffering victims of the opioid epidemic — and also to prevent more families and communities from suffering the same fate."
But as an opponent of the plan, she said she should be able to pursue her own case against the Sacklers in front of a jury of peers.
"Here, we have several family members on the board [of Purdue] and they turn around and they make this product, it turns out to be a drug that is killing now over 1 million people, and there's no accountability," she said.
Isaacs recalled receiving her ballot to vote on the plan, which recommended a "yes" vote. She said it was "ludicrous that someone wants to speak for me."
"It's just all wrong," she said. "I want my day with Richard Sackler."
Isaacs' attorney said the release for the Sacklers amounts to special protection that is not afforded to others.
"The Sacklers have at their availability, because of these releases, an escape hatch from liability, whereas people like you, me and Ellen would never have that ability to escape liability," he said. "We don't have billions of dollars to push a carcass of a company into bankruptcy and then hide behind it."
According to legal experts, the potential outcome of a Supreme Court case involving Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan could have far-reaching consequences for the bankruptcy system. The case centers around the use of third-party releases, which allow corporate owners and decision-makers to avoid liability for risky decisions. If the Supreme Court upholds these releases, it could set a precedent that allows companies to act with impunity and individuals to escape accountability.
The Impacts of a Decision
Experts warn that if the court rejects Purdue's bankruptcy plan and deems third-party releases invalid, it could have ripple effects throughout the bankruptcy system. Many major Chapter 11 bankruptcies rely on these releases, and their elimination could force a reevaluation of pending mass tort cases. One such case involves the Boy Scouts of America, which recently emerged from bankruptcy after facing numerous lawsuits alleging sexual abuse.
"There's lots of pending mass tort cases which they were planning on and hoping for third-party releases that would have to revisit this," said a legal expert.
The Supreme Court's decision on the Purdue Pharma case is expected to be announced by the summer.
The Boy Scouts' agreement involves a trust that holds approximately $2.5 billion in cash, along with releases for nonprofit local councils, chartering organizations, and other third parties. The group cautioned in a filing that if the Supreme Court determines that these third-party releases are not permitted under the bankruptcy code, it would have "devastating consequences for both victims and venerable non-profit institutions in mass-tort situations."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also urged the court to uphold the 2nd Circuit's decision, referring to the releases from liability that were included in reorganization plans for numerous dioceses that filed for bankruptcy after facing litigation concerning sexual abuse allegations.
"Although the Church deeply regrets the abuse and acknowledges the need to compensate victims, the Bankruptcy Code has long been understood to provide them with a fair, orderly, and lawful pathway out of the complex web of mass tort liability that currently surrounds them, so that they can continue the Church's mission," the group, comprising active Catholic bishops, informed the justices. "The court should not close off that pathway in this case."
