In response to the legal maneuverings of the Sackler family as they attempt to escape the consequences of their actions, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney of New York introduced the Sacker Act on March 19, 2021. 

The full title of this bill is “The SACKLER Act and Other Policies to Promote Accountability for the Sackler Family’s Role in the Opioid Epidemic.” 

The purpose of this legislation is to prevent individuals who have not filed for bankruptcy, like members of the Sackler family, from obtaining releases from individual liability through bankruptcy proceedings. This is exactly what the Sacklers have been trying to do—and succeeding until the most recent development on this matter on December 16, 2021. 

On that date, a federal judge overturned the settlement from a New York bankruptcy court that attempted to shield the family from litigation or criminal charges. 

The SACKLER Act, in detailed language, intends to close this loophole in any similar cases in the future. You can read the text of this Act here. 

Hearing and Testimony

There was an in-person and virtual hearing on this Act on June 8, 2021. To understand the reasons this Act was needed and the emotions connected with it, reading or viewing the testimony is valuable. 

On this page, you can read a transcript of the testimony of Patrick Radden Keefe, the author of Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty, previously reviewed on this blog. In his brief testimony before Congress, Keefe summarized his years of research deep into the family dynamics and corporate malfeasance of the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma.  

Also testifying on this day was Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy. Healy was the first AG to file a lawsuit against the Sacklers themselves and not just Purdue Pharma. The Stamford Advocate quoted Healy as saying, “Over and over, the people closest to this crisis have said what must be done. They want a commitment to treatment and prevention, they want the whole truth exposed, and they want the perpetrators to be held accountable…it’s why I’ve rejected the Sacklers’ repeated attempts to cover up, to conceal, to buy off their misconduct, avoid accountability and walk away billionaires richer today than they were yesterday.”

While it is regrettable that a family or a company must be forced to do what is right, not enforcing moral behavior on these entities is worse. Without this enforcement, there is no justice of any kind. 

Parallels to the Standard Oil Breakup

Does an Act like this have any precedent? Is it really necessary for Congress to pass a law forcing a family to take responsibility for its actions?

The breakup of Standard Oil by the Supreme Court bears some similarities. In 1911, the Supreme Court ruled that John R. Rockefeller had violated antitrust laws by monopolizing the oil industry in America. From his start in the business in the 1860s, Rockefeller had manipulated and bullied his way into owning 90% of American oil industry. That made him the wealthiest man in the world at that point. 

The Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil should be dismantled “on the ground that it is a combination in unreasonable restraint of inter-State commerce.” The company was broken up into 34 different companies, of which we still have ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips today. 

In Rockefeller’s case, Standard Oil had stockholders which Purdue Pharma does not. Purdue is owned outright by the Sackler family. But there are parallels. It is certain that Rockefeller relentlessly drove an untold number of smaller companies out of business as he built his business. The Sacklers relentlessly drove hundreds of sales representatives until they coerced and persuaded doctors to administer addictive drugs to millions of patients. 

The sad fact is that there are individuals and families in this world that refuse any responsibility until they have it forced on them by Congress or the Supreme Court. The ones who lose the most are the individuals who are bulldozed by these individuals’ actions. 

Will This Act Provide Justice for America? 

Who can answer this question? 

• Those whose loved ones trusted their doctors and took the medications as prescribed and then became addicted and ultimately lost their lives. 

• The doctors who trusted Purdue’s pharmaceutical reps, prescribed high and increasing doses of OxyContin to their patients at the advice of these reps and then had to watch their patients die.

• Even the pharmaceutical reps who eventually came to realize that they had been lied to by Richard Sackler and their sales managers. 

All these people must live with the grim knowledge that they helped launch an opioid crisis that shows no signs of ending. 

The SACKLER Act may provide a measure of justice but it will never be able to balance the scales.