Is DOJ Supporting the Purdue Pharma Plan? Or Not?
The Department of Justice appears to be mumbling out of both sides of its mouth in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy. On July 19, DOJ filed a "statement" regarding the release of the Sacklers. Not an "objection," but a statement that sure reads a lot like an objection. Then today we learn that DOJ did not bother to vote its multi-billion dollar claim. The plan deems a vote not cast to be an acceptance.
So which one is it? Is DOJ for the plan or against it? Or trying to keep its head down and avoid political heat while not really derailing anything? Whatever position DOJ wants to take, this approach is not exactly a profile in courage. (And failing to vote is not exactly in keeping with DOJ's brand... And failing to exercise governance rights on a multi-billion dollar asset? Bruh.)
I'll be very curious to see if DOJ actually argues anything at the confirmation hearing or joins in any appeal. The appellate point is key--there's a long-shot chance that the district court or 2nd Circuit might stay the effective date of the plan--but I think the odds of that are close to zero unless DOJ is among the parties making such a motion. If DOJ fails to seek a stay of the plan going into effect, it will be hard to see DOJ's "statement" as anything more than political posturing.
Comments