Purdue Pharma's settlement plan is currently being reviewed in federal court as a part of the company's bankruptcy case, and, while the company claims creditors support the plan, critics say the settlement agreement lets the Sackler family get away with the harm they allegedly caused.

The settlement is meant to resolve thousands of lawsuits brought by state and local governments regarding the role the maker of OxyContin allegedly played in accelerating the opioid crisis. The plan also includes the settlement of more than 134,000 personal injury suits filed by individuals against the pharma giant.

According to the court filing, the plan has received over 90% approval by creditors. However, a company official later admitted that most of the 600,000 eligible voters did not submit an opinion.

The plan is under review by Judge Robert Drain and has been valued at more than $10 million by Purdue. The settlement stipulates that the Sackler family must relinquish control of Purdue and that the business is to be converted into a "public benefit company" meant to help address the opioid epidemic.

The Sackler family has agreed to contribute $4.3 billion to the settlement. According to a Forbes profile from 2020, the family is worth nearly $11 billion. By 2030, that net worth is expected to reach $14.6 billion.

In return for that contribution comes a clean slate for the Sacklers, barring any pending or potential claims or complaints regarding Purdue.

John Dubel, the chair of the special committee of Purdue's director board, told the Stamford Advocate that Purdue always knew that releasing the Sacklers from any further litigation "would be a requirement by the Sacklers for... 'global peace'".

"That would include releases by the debtors and third-party releases," Dubel continued. "How that was going to be implemented was something that would ultimately have to be worked out and has subsequently been worked out through the mediation process and 95 percent-plus support of the creditors for this plan of reorganization."

Legal representatives associated with the Sackler family have said that these releases are important because they protect individuals with "little or no connection to the debtors". In this case, "the debtors" refers to the Sackler family's co-owned company, Purdue Pharma, while the individuals being protected include the Sackler children.

"For example, the children of Jonathan Sackler, who never had any role with the debtors (other than summer internships or similar short-term educational experiences when they were in school) were subjected to extensive document discovery in these bankruptcy cases," Garrett Lynam, general counsel for a family office owned by the late Jonathan Sackler, told the Stamford Advocate.

Judge Drain has expressed concern regarding the "breadth" of the legal releases included in the settlement plan, and the plan is also strongly opposed by Purdue's home state of Connecticut, as well as California, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and D.C.

"We will not consent to a plan that seeks to strong-arm us into releasing our claims against the Sacklers and allowing them to walk away with their wealth intact while victims of the opioid epidemic and their families suffer and grieve," Attorney General of Conn. William Tong told reporters last month. "I remain firmly opposed and will continue to fight until all viable options are exhausted."

Tong has said that if the plan is approved by Judge Drain the state will exhaust all of its other options.

Protestors congregated outside the courthouse on Monday, August 9, to voice criticism of the settlement plan and to ask Judge Drain to reject it.

"They are opioid profiteers who have caused mass death and they sit pretty in this court," a protestor told reporters with the Associated Press. "It's not right."

The so-called SACKLER ("Stop Shielding Assets from Corporate Known Liability by Eliminating Non-Debtor Releases") Act has also been introduced by U.S. Senator for Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, D. The act would bar individuals from being released from government lawsuits as a part of a bankruptcy filing not filed by that individual. Basically, the Sackler's wouldn't be able to demand legal releases in Purdue's settlement plan because they aren't the ones filing for bankruptcy, the company is.

The plan has received backing from 95% of creditors with voting rights on the issue, including 40 states. Purdue filed for bankruptcy roughly two years ago.