In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.

Filing 13

ORDER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: I propose that we hold the conference on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 2 PM in my courtroom, which is Room 24A in the Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. If that date and time do not work, please propose some thing else, as long as it is prior to October 19. By the close of business on October 18, I want to have a schedule set in stone. ( Status Conference set for 10/12/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Colleen McMahon.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/6/2021) (va)

...

USDCSDNY

DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - --

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
a

In re: PURDUE PHARMA
BANKRUPTCY APPEALS
X

This Filing Relates to

- - - - - - -- - - -- - -- -- -

X

ALL MATTERS

DOC#·

DATE ~ILED:

I(

I_D

t

t/ ~J--I

21 CV 7532 (CM)
2 1 CV 7961 (CM)
21 CV 7962 (CM)
21 CV 7966 (CM)
21 CV 7969 (CM)
21 CV 8034 (CM)
21 CV 8042 (CM)
21 CV 8049 (CM)
21 CV 8055 (CM)
21 CV 8139 (CM)

- - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -X
ORDER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
McMahon, J.:
I understand that the first-filed appeal in this matter was wheeled out and reassigned to me.
I have accepted the other nine appeals from Judge Drain' s order as related, as requested by
the parties. The court's Assignment Committee ordered all ten cases assigned to my docket late
yesterday afternoon.
I apologize for the delay in getting these cases transferred to my docket. It was occasioned
by an unusually thorough - and, as it turns out, unnecessary - conflicts check. Knowing that every
creditor of Purdue has an interest in whether the settlement that Judge Drain has approved will be
allowed to go forward or not, we were under the impression that it might be necessary to check
my own "conflicts list" against the entire list of Purdue creditors - a not insubstantial task, which
we actually began.
However, yesterday afternoon Messers. Genna and Paez provided me with a copy of JCUS
Com mittee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 100: Identifying Parties in
Bankruptcy Cases for Purposes of Disqualification, which provides, in substance, that "simply
being a creditor or an interest holder of a bankruptcy estate is not a sufficient interest to make that
creditor a "party to the proceeding" for conflicts purposes . .. .." The opinion, with which I am sure
you are all familiar (though I was not), goes on to say," ..... if a creditor accepts appointment to a
committee of creditors, that change in status is sufficient to make each such creditor or interest
holder ' a party' because of the statutory responsibi lities assumed by acceptance of such an
appointment. In addition, the following participants in bankruptcy proceedings should be
considered parties for these purposes : the debtor; a trustee ; parties to an adversary proceeding; and

participants in a contested matter. These entities occupy a central role in the proceedings or are
actively involved in matters requiring judicial adjudication. As a consequence, we advise that they
are sufficiently akin to parties that they should be treated as such for purposes of judicial
disqualification."
For my purposes the most important sentence in the opinion was this: "The Committee has
advised . .. ... that in the ordinary bankruptcy case a judge has no obligation to review the schedules
of creditors and interest holders to look for possibly disqualifying circumstances."
Once apprised of this opinion, I focused my conflicts check on those entities identified in
Advisory Opinion No . 100 as "parties" for conflicts purposes. I am pleased to report that we got
no hits. I can attest from personal knowledge that no member of my family has asserted any claim
against Purdue. As I read the Advisory Opinion, that means I have no disqualifying conflict of
interest.
While we were engaged in the more cumbersome conflicts checking process, we got one
"hit" for a current personal investment - Microsoft - but as I understand it, Microsoft has simply
filed a proof of claim and does not otherwise participate in the proceedings that are now on appeal.
This, as I understand the rule, does not create a disqualifying conflict of interest, because Microsoft
is not a "party" for conflicts purposes. If my understanding of Microsoft's role in connection with
these appeals is incorrect, please advise me immediately.
Finally, the parties are advised that the Davis Polk firm represents my husband for estate
planning purposes. The firm does not represent me for any purpose, and never has, and I do not
recuse myself from matters in which Davis Polk appears.
Anyway, that is the reason for the delay. I trust it will be the last delay we experience.

It occurs to me that we should be able to get this appeal briefed swiftly. From what I know
of this case, the principal issue to be decided on appeal is the legality of the provision of the
settlement that protects the members of the Sackler family from further civil litigation over opioids,
in exchange for their contribution toward the settlement fund. That issue was fully briefed before
Judge Drain. I see no reason why we cannot either rely on the briefs below for that issue or
supplement them with short additional briefs that address relevant aspects of Judge Drain's
decision. Doing so would tee up the issue in which everyone is interested in very short order.
If there are other aspects of Judge Drain's order approving the settlement that are being
contested on appeal , I need to be educated about them quickly.
I would like to schedule a conference, both to finalize the briefing schedule and to acquaint
me with any issues aside from the Sackler liability discharge that will have to be decided on these
appeals. I understand the urgency of this matter, and it is important to me that we move as quickly
as possible -- consistent, of course, with getting the law right.
I propose that we hold the conference on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 2 PM in my
courtroom, which is Room 24A in the Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. If that date and

--------------time do not work, please propose something else, as long as it is prior to October 19. By the close
of business on October 18, I want to have a schedule set in stone.
Pandemic or not, I prefer to have counsel appear in person for this conference. We
obviously cannot accommodate entire teams of lawyers, even in my oversized courtroom, so I ask
that only lawyers who will have a speaking role appear in person. We will have call in numbers
for counsel who cannot get to the courthouse and for members of the public. I want to emphasize
that this is strictly a scheduling conference; there will be no discussion of the merits of any issue.
But I recognize that there is great public interest in this matter, and we will of course accommodate
it.
I look forward to working with you.
Dated: October 6, 2021

U.S.D.J.
BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD