Darryl Hong

U.S.District Judge Colleen McMahon in New York said that the bankruptcy court that first agreed to the settlement, did not have the legal authority to release the family from liability. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland, the head of the Justice Department which had  appealed that settlement plan, said he was ‘pleased’ with McMahon’s ruling.

‘The bankruptcy court did not have the authority to deprive victims of the opioid crisis of their right to sue the Sackler family,’ Garland added.

In a statement Thursday night, Purdue said that it would appeal the ruling and at the same time try to forge another plan that its creditors will agree to.

Purdue claimed the ruling will not hurt the company’s operations, but it will make it harder for company and Sackler money to be used to fight the opioid crisis as the legal fight continues.

‘It will delay, and perhaps end, the ability of creditors, communities, and individuals to receive billions in value to abate the opioid crisis,’ said Steve Miller, chairman of the Purdue board of directors.’These funds are needed now more than ever as overdose rates hit record-highs, and we are confident that we can successfully appeal this decision and deliver desperately needed funds to the communities and individuals suffering in the midst of this crisis.’

Representatives of the two branches of the family who own the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who was among a handful of state officials seeking to have the original deal undone, called the ruling ‘a seismic victory for justice and accountability.’ 

Tong said the ruling will ‘re-open the deeply flawed Purdue bankruptcy and force the Sackler family to confront the pain and devastation they have caused.’

Purdue sought bankruptcy protection in 2019 as it faced thousands of lawsuits claiming the company pushed doctors to prescribe OxyContin, helping spark an opioid crisis that has been linked to more than 500,000 deaths in the U.S.over the last two decades.

Through the bankruptcy court, it worked out a deal with its creditors. Members of the Sackler family would give up ownership of the company, which would transform into a different kind of entity that would still sell opioids — but with profits being used to fight the crisis.It would also develop new anti-addiction and anti-overdose drugs and provide them at little or no cost.

Sackler family members also would contribute $4.5 billion in cash and charitable assets as part of an overall deal that could be worth $10 billion, including the value of the new drugs, if they’re brought to market.  

Government entities and businesses agreed to use any money they receive fighting the opioid epidemic.The deal also calls for millions of company documents, including communications with lawyers, to be made public.

In return, members of the wealthy family would get protection from lawsuits over their role in the opioid crisis — both the 860 already filed and any others in the future.

Most state and local governments, Native American tribes, individual opioid victims and others who voted said the plan worked out in the bankruptcy court should be accepted.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, like several others, sued Sackler family members and initially opposed the settlement before eventually agreeing to it this year. 

She said in a statement that if the deal doesn’t hold up, she’s ready to resume the civil lawsuit: ‘Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family remain named defendants in our ongoing litigation and we will hold them accountable for their unlawful behavior, one way or another.’

A bankruptcy court judge approved the plan over the objections in September.But the opponents appealed to McMahon’s court. 

The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee’s office, eight state attorneys general and some other entities have been fighting the deal. They argue that it does not properly hold members of the Sackler family accountable and that it usurps states’ ability to try to do so.

The main issue on the appeal was the lawfulness of the measures that would extend legal protections to family members.

Such ‘third-party releases’ are not used in most bankruptcy cases, but they are common in cases such as Purdue’s, in which the companies involved are burdened with lawsuits and have relatively little value — but their wealthy owners could contribute.

The Purdue deal would not protect family members from any criminal charges.But so far none have been filed, and there are no signs that any are forthcoming, though some activists are calling for charges.

In a hearing, McMahon focused in on how Sackler family members transferred $10.4 billion from the privately held Stamford, Connecticut-based company over the decade before the bankruptcy.McMahon wanted to know whether the money was moved in part to ensure a role for the Sacklers in bankruptcy negotiations.

But in her ruling Thursday, McMahon did not dig deeply into those transfers or the idea of holding Sackler family members accountable for the opioid crisis.Instead, makeup she focused on whether the bankruptcy law even allows for the kind of deal the company and its creditors struck if there are objections to it.

‘The great unsettled question in this case is whether the Bankruptcy Court — or any court — is statutorily authorized to grant such releases.This issue has split the federal Circuits for decades,’ she wrote.

She also noted that other courts will weigh in on the case. The next step is likely before the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

‘This opinion will not be the last word on the subject, nor should it be,’ she wrote.’This issue has hovered over bankruptcy law for thirty-five years.’

<div class="art-ins mol-factbox news" data-version="2" id="mol-82464340-5ee4-11ec-a9a9-4d5a7835b529" website tosses $4.5 billion deal shielding Purdue&apos;s Sackler family

The former glamour model, 43, was told by a judge that she deserved to spend  behind bars after committing her ninth motoring offence.

But she escaped with a suspended prison sentence because she complied with a requirement to attend the The Priory, a £6,800-a-week rehab centre — despite going out shopping while staying at the facility.

Fury was growing today over her sentence, as campaigners told of how they were ‘gobsmacked’ she avoided jail. 

John Scruby, a trustee of the Campaign Against Drink Driving charity, told MailOnline the sentencing was ‘another case of a celebrity twisting the rules to escape justice’, adding the average person facing drink driving charges ‘cannot afford to go to a £6,000-a-week rehab centre’.

He also accused Price of ‘trying to play the victim’ in a case where ‘she is only a victim of her own stupidity and selfishness’.    

Price was handed a 16-week suspended sentence and two-year ban at Crawley Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, three months after she flipped her BMW on its side on a country lane near her home in West Sussex at around 6.20am on September 28.

In a statement on her Instagram page, Price issued a grovelling apology and woman domination said she ‘realised the damage my actions could have caused’.

She added: ‘I would like to thank my family — my children, my mum, dad, sister, brother, my partner Carl, Leigh, and my friends who have supported me throughout these past few months

‘It’s been a really difficult time and I’m incredibly sorry for my actions — I’m sincerely grateful nobody was hurt — I realise the damage my actions could have caused not only to another family, but to my own as well.

‘I’m now spending time getting better — mental health is a hidden illness and can strike at any time.

‘The triggers that cause my anxiety and behaviour are something I’m trying to understand, come to terms with, and makeup learn to control moving forward.

‘This will be a long process for myself and something I’ll continue to work on for the rest of my life.It’s also something I can work on with my family so we can progress on a new chapter.’

Sources close to Price say she was left ‘terrified’ by how close she came to being sent to prison and she is determined to use the experience to transform her life.

But her family fear she has checked out of the Priory ‘too early’ and are urging her to continue treatment as they are concerned she may relapse.  

<div class="art-ins mol-factbox news floatRHS" data-version="2" id="mol-da0b2ec0-5dc1-11ec-a7c0-13abd6b84dae" website Price &apos;incredibly sorry&apos; after driving drunk, banned and high

A hefty 49 per cent of scent sales take place at this time of year. As Day draws near, I find myself longing for seasonal wonders: Caron’s Nuit de Noel, a heady amber-floral evocation of smoking church candles from 1922; Etro’s Messe de Minuit, a contemporary (1994) take on the midnight-mass theme; and a new pash, Laboratorio Olfattivo’s Sacreste, an incense blend concocted in 2018 (£110, jarrold.co.uk).

My partner and I usually escape abroad over Christmas. Wherever we roam, Terence brings a mini Diptyque Feu de Bois candle as our own portable Yule (£29 for 70g, diptyqueparis.com). Its architect was the brilliant Olivia Giacobetti, who created Hiris for Hermes and Diptyque’s figgy Philosykos.

The sublimely woody Feu de Bois (1999) somehow contrives to both be robustly literal — a log fire — and conjure the primordial desire for warmth, comfort, sanctuary.

December always spells Chanel No. 5 (from £62, chanel.com), which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, yet forever young — not least at Christmas, when it is the scent via which the globe’s menfolk pay tribute to the women in their lives.

Jacques Polge, house nose between 1978 and 2015, asserted that: ‘No. 5 is the only example of a fragrance that becomes more intriguing as time passes. Each year adds to its charm, its mystery, its depth.’

He wasn’t wrong. In an age in which the shelf life of many fragrances is less than 18 months, Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel’s first perfume is less a scent than a cultural phenomenon. Perfumer Ernest Beaux’s creation for Coco remains the best-selling fragrance in the world — a status it has held since the late 1920s.

So famous was it that, during the liberation of Paris in 1944, American soldiers lined up on the Rue Cambon to buy it for their sweethearts.

Later, it was the only thing to come