August, 16 2016, 09:45am EDT

Syria/Russia: Incendiary Weapons Burn in Aleppo, Idlib
Increasing Attacks on Civilian Areas Since Joint Operation Began
Beirut
The joint Syrian-Russian military operation has been using incendiary weapons, which burn their victims and start fires, in civilian areas of Syria in violation of international law, Human Rights Watch said today. Incendiary weapons have been used at least 18 times over the past nine weeks, including in attacks on the opposition-held areas in the cities of Aleppo and Idlib on August 7, 2016.
Countries meeting at the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) in Geneva on August 29, 2016 should condemn the use of air-dropped incendiary weapons in civilian areas of Syria in violation of the treaty's Protocol III on incendiary weapons. They should encourage Syria to join the protocol and press Syria and Russia to immediately stop using incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should also review the protocol and take steps to strengthen it.
"The Syrian government and Russia should immediately stop attacking civilian areas with incendiary weapons," said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. "These weapons inflict horrible injuries and excruciating pain, so all countries should condemn their use in civilian areas."
A Human Rights Watch review of photographs and videos recorded at the time of attack and of the remnants afterward indicates there were at least 18 incendiary weapon attacks on opposition-held areas in Aleppo and Idlib governorates between June 5 and August 10. At least 12 civilians were reported wounded by witnesses and first responders in five of these attacks.
The visual evidence that incendiary weapons were used includes the distinctive mid-air displays created by the bright burning trails of air-dropped incendiary weapons containing ZAB-series incendiary submunitions. Other indicators include the small but intense fires created by each submunition over the time it takes to burn out as well as markings on the bomb casings and submunitions.
Local activists, human rights organizations, first responders, and media organizations have reported the use of incendiary weapons on at least 40 other occasions, but no photographs and video footage were available, so Human Rights Watch could not conclusively determine if incendiary weapons were involved.
Incendiary weapons produce heat and fire through the chemical reaction of a flammable substance, causing excruciatingly painful burns that are difficult to treat. The weapons also start fires that are hard to extinguish, destroying civilian objects and infrastructure.
An incendiary weapon attack on the opposition-held Idlib city on the evening of August 7 wounded at least two civilians, witnesses said.
"I saw with my own eyes two strikes, both 'phosphorus'--blocks of flame were falling from the sky," said. Ala' Abdel Aziz Hmeidan, an Idlib resident. "After that, there was a strike with a missile carrying cluster bombs. It was tragic, buildings were on fire, rocks were on fire." He said the area contains residential buildings and that there were no armed groups in the vicinity.
Syria Civil Defense, an opposition search-and-rescue volunteer group, reported an incendiary weapon attack on the residential area in al-Mashhad in opposition-held east Aleppo city at around 4 p.m. on August 7 that injured a child. Photographs taken immediately after the attack by Aleppo resident Malek Tarboush show at least four incendiary submunitions burning on the ground in a narrow street that contains at least one shop. Human Rights Watch was unable to identify the specific type of incendiary weapon used in the attack.
Incendiary weapon attacks in Syria have increased significantly since the Russian Federation began its joint military operation with the Syrian government on September 30, 2015. There is compelling evidence that Russian government aircraft are being used to deliver incendiary weapons or at least are participating with Syrian government aircraft in attacks using incendiary weapons.
More than a dozen countries have condemned or expressed concern at the use of incendiary weapons in Syria since 2013, including Colombia, Sweden, Turkey, UK, and the US in recent weeks. The other states that have condemned the use of incendiary weapons in Syria are Austria, Croatia, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland.
"The disgraceful incendiary weapon attacks in Syria show an abject failure to adhere to international law restricting incendiary weapons," Goose said. "The resulting civilian harm demonstrates the inadequacy of existing law on incendiary weapons, which should be strengthened urgently. From a humanitarian standpoint, a global ban on incendiary weapons would provide the best solution."
For more information about the incendiary weapons protocol, details of the recent attacks, and evidence of the use of incendiary weapons, please see below.
Goose and Human Rights Watch arms advocacy director Mary Wareham are attending the week-long CCW meeting that opens in Geneva on August 29, 2016.
The Incendiary Weapons Protocol
Russia is a party to the incendiary weapons protocol and has acknowledged the "significant humanitarian damage" caused by incendiary weapons in Syria, which it attributed to "improper use," in a November 2015 letter to Human Rights Watch.
Russia has not responded to criticism of its apparent involvement in recent incendiary weapon attacks in Syria. In November 2015, Russia urged "faithful observation" of international law relating to incendiary weapons, but rejected calls to revisit and strengthen Protocol III on incendiary weapons of the conventional weapons treaty as "counterproductive."
The Syrian government has ignored calls to join Protocol III, which 113 countries are party to, including Russia and the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The protocol bans the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons in areas with "concentrations of civilians," but permits the use of ground-launched incendiary weapons.
Protocol III defines "concentrations of civilians" broadly as "any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees."
The treaty's member countries should support the call to revisit and amend Protocol III to fix the significant loophole permitting use of ground-launched incendiary weapons in civilian areas. They should revisit the definition of incendiary weapons in Protocol III as it is overly narrow and fails adequately to deal with multi-purpose incendiary munitions such as white phosphorus. These and other inconsistencies have undermined the protocol's effectiveness and failed to deter use of incendiary weapons over the past 35 years, Human Rights Watch said.
Idlib city, Idlib governorate, August 7, 2016
Syrian or Russian fixed-wing jet aircraft dropped incendiary weapons in an attack on the opposition-held city of Idlib on the evening of Sunday, August 7, wounding up to 10 people, witnesses reported. On August 9, Human Rights Watch interviewed four local residents who separately witnessed the attack, including two first responders.
Mouti' Jalal, a volunteer with Syria Civil Defense in Idlib told Human Rights Watch:
I was at home in Sarmin, Idlib. I heard volunteers radioing in about two strikes. They were saying it was phosphorus. I grabbed my camera and was on my way. I saw fire falling from the sky. But couldn't get to the area because the roads were under attack. The fire was so bright, you could see it from outside the city and everyone saw it. I had a clear view of the phosphorus falling on my way but unfortunately my camera was slow and couldn't get a picture at the right moment.
An Idlib resident, Mohammad Taj Al-Din Othman, provided Human Rights Watch with photos he took of the attack that contain metadata showing they were taken at 23:03 and 23:08 local time on August 7, 2016. Othman said:
The first missile disintegrated in the sky and fell down in pieces. It wasn't too loud but it led to a huge fire as soon as it hit the ground. Other explosions followed. And it made the fire worse. I could clearly see the flames bursting. Within 10 minutes, there were more strikes. The fire was unbelievable, it turned night into day. Across fifty square meters. And it kept getting worse for five minutes.
A second Syria Civil Defense (SCD) Idlib volunteer who asked not to be named said:
It was night and calm; we could clearly hear warplanes circling. It was a frightening sound. I also saw a missile get launched from the plane, a bright spot in the sky, along with a terrible blast. SCD was unable to determine the nature of the weapon used but we know for a fact that it was highly flammable.
Video and photos recorded at the time of attack and afterward of the remnants show the use of RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM bombs, an incendiary weapon that delivers 117 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary submunitions. The witness accounts and visual evidence confirm this was an incendiary weapon attack.
Each ZAB-2.5SM submunition burns for up to 10 minutes, starting fires that are hard to extinguish. Numerous photographs and videos from the Idlib attack clearly shows individual fires between residential buildings started by burning submunitions.
The ZAB-2.5SM submunitions delivered by RBK-500 bombs contain a small bursting charge to ignite the flammable substance as they are released from the bomb in mid-air. The fires started by incendiary weapons can also cause secondary explosions when they burn objects on the ground.
Jalal, the Syria Civil Defense volunteer, said that the multiple airstrikes that evening wounded approximately 10 people. He told Human Rights Watch: "Some had burns, but most had just concussions and fractures."
Yahya A'arja, the Idlib director of Syria Civil Defense, who responded to one of the August 7 attack sites, said the incendiary weapons "fell on the street, luckily not on homes, and only burned cars." He said that "the smell led to suffocation, injuring two. No burns at all, thank God. Only asphyxiation from the smell because it wasn't on their bodies." The victims were treated at the scene. "Oxygen therapy was administered inside the ambulance," A'arja said.
According to the unnamed Syria Civil Defense volunteer, the airstrikes consisted of four attacks [including] on "a large crowded residential neighborhood of Idlib city known as al-Dabbit." He said, "I can confirm that there is no military presence in that area."
Othman provided Human Rights Watch with a list of four locations in the city that were attacked by incendiary weapons on August 7:
- al-Dabbit, near the university's faculty of humanities;
- Hay al-Jam'aa, in the Dawar al-Mal'aab neighborhood;
- al-Konsorwa industrial area; and
- al-Ghazl industrial area.
Othman said during the attack on the university's faculty of humanities at al-Dabbit, incendiary bombs "fell between houses and people were terrified and started panicking, they even went out of their homes." He described Hay al-Jam'aa as "a typical residential area" that was hit first by incendiary weapons that "fell in the middle of the street" rather than on homes, thereby minimizing damage. He said the university still functions, but there were no classes at the time of the evening attack. The area also has a small supermarket and a coffee shop. He said the al-Konsorwa industrial area that was attacked has a factory that is no longer used and is "not residential per se but there are many displaced people there." It "used to be a Syrian army checkpoint."
Othman said that "armed groups are stationed around the city but they weren't targeted" in the incendiary weapon attacks on August 7. He said "the strikes were repetitive and you could hear the plane in the sky, it was very loud and continuous. I only saw the plane when it launched the first missile. I think it was Russian. And it was just one plane."
Two teams of Syria Civil Defense volunteers from Idlib extinguished the fires started by the attack and gathered and destroyed remnants of the incendiary weapons even though they had no expertise with them. Jalal said they were told to use gravel to extinguish the fire because "water makes it worse."
A Syria Civil Defense volunteer who responded to the attack told Human Rights Watch:
The fire was vast, spreading hundreds of meters, difficult to put out. It reacted with water so we had to use other material, like foam and powder, even gravel. The fire took over everything, houses, cars, oil tanks, and even grass. We heard explosions. It was huge, it required immense efforts to extinguish. The tall, crowded buildings did not make things easy. It took us around an hour to control the situation. It was so bright you could see the buildings as if was daylight. It was absolutely abnormal. Honestly, words cannot describe it.
Technical Background and Recent Attacks
Since November 2012, Human Rights Watch has recorded the use of four types of incendiary weapons in Syria, all ZAB-series (Zazhigatelnaya Aviatsionnaya Bomba) incendiary aircraft bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union:
- RBK-500 ZAB 2.5SM bomb, each containing 117 ZAB 2.5SM incendiary submunitions
- RBK-250 ZAB-2.5 bomb, each containing 48 ZAB-2.5 incendiary submunitions
- ZAB-100-105 bomb, each containing nine cylindrical incendiary cartridges
- ZAB-500 unitary incendiary bomb
ZAB-series bombs contain a substance believed to be thermite that ignites while falling, leading witnesses to describe the incendiary submunitions as "fireballs." It is not napalm or white phosphorus, which are notorious flammable substances used in other incendiary weapons.
The majority of witness accounts collected by Human Right Watch and video evidence indicate that fixed-wing jet aircraft and helicopters have been used to deliver air-dropped incendiary weapons in Syria. There has been at least one incident involving the use of a surface-launched incendiary weapon.
The Syrian government has used factory-made incendiary weapons since November 2012, particularly air-dropped bombs manufactured by the Soviet Union such as RBK-250 series bombs and ZAB-100-105 bombs. Syrian government forces have also used air-dropped weapons consisting of improvised canisters or "barrel bombs" filled with a napalm-like flammable substance.
Footage broadcasted by Russian state media on June 18 shows RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM incendiary bombs mounted on a Su-34 fighter-ground attack aircraft at the Russian air base at Hmeymim, southeast of Latakia city, in Syria. Only the Russian air force operates this type of aircraft in Syria.
Documented Incendiary Weapon Attacks, June 5-August 10, 2016
Date | Location | Casualties (source) | Type of Incendiary Weapon | Visual Confirmation |
August 10 | Qubtan al-Jabal, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
August 7 | Idlib city, Idlib | 2-10 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
August 7 | Aleppo city, Aleppo | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | Not available | |
July 7 | Kafr Hamrah, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 26 | Saraqib, Idlib | 1 reported wounded (SCD) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 26 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | Media N/A |
June 24 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 23 | Khan al-Asal, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 22 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 22 | Kafr Naya or Urum al-Kubrah, Aleppo | 2 reported wounded (SCD, witness) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 (approximate) | Hraytan (Haritan), Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 20 | Hayyan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 19 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | Not available | |
June 16 | Ma'ar Shoreen, Idlib | None reported | Not available | Photos on file |
June 15 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 11 | Kafr Halab, Aleppo | 6 reported wounded (Smart News Agency) | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 10 | Kafr Hamra, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM | |
June 5 | Anadan, Aleppo | None reported | RBK-500 ZAB-2.5SM |
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
After Israel Trip, George Latimer Files to Primary Rep. Bowman
While Latimer has said Israel will be a "big issue" but "not the whole issue," one observer predicted that the contest "is going to be the ugliest Democratic proxy war of the 2024 cycle."
Dec 04, 2023
After visiting Israel last week, Westchester County Executive George Latimer on Monday filed paperwork to launch a primary challenge against Democratic New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman, a critic of the Israeli government and its devastating war on the Gaza Strip.
The 70-year-old county executive, who previously served in the New York State Senate and Assembly, has been openly considering a run for the 16th Congressional District—which Bowman has represented since 2021, after successfully primarying former Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel.
Latimer suggested toThe Washington Post early last month that if he ran against Bowman, "it might be that this becomes a proxy argument" between "the left and the far left." He later toldPolitico that Israel would be a "big issue" but "not the whole issue," and his campaign would focus on his record as "the most progressive" county official in the state.
Bowman is the fourth "Squad" member to face a serious primary challenger for 2024, joining Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). They are all among the eight progressives who in October voted against a bipartisan House resolution expressing unconditional support for Israel's government as it waged war on Gaza.
The four of them also support a resolution demanding a cease-fire in Gaza. While the number of House members calling for a cease-fire has grown to more than four dozen as Israeli forces have killed thousands of Palestinians over the past two months, as The Intercepthighlighted last week, "a closer look at some lawmakers' statements raises questions about whether they are truly pushing for an end to the violence."
Latimer does not support a cease-fire. As Politico reported on his trip:
The county executive and former state lawmaker said that his time with Israelis, such as meeting with President Isaac Herzog, taught him that there is "no animosity directed toward the Palestinian people."
"There's people that are protesting that they're pro-Palestine, as if the Israeli position is anti-Palestinian," he said in an interview while waiting to board his return flight at Ben Gurion Airport.
"There wasn't a 'let's go get those bastards' kind of mindset," he said. "The anger and fear is directed at Hamas as the terrorist organization that runs the country and that's a differentiation you don't often pick up."
Since declaring war in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, Israel has killed nearly 15,900 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded another 42,000 in airstrikes and raids, according to health officials in the besieged enclave. At least hundreds of those killings have come after the seven-day pause in fighting that ended late last week.
Responding to Latimer's filing on Monday, Slate's Alex Sammon said, "There it is: after weeks of unnecessary hemming and hawing (during which he stockpiled an extra helping of cash from the Israel lobby), George Latimer is challenging Jamaal Bowman, aiming to [replace] one of the party's rising stars as a 70-year-old white freshman congressman."
It was Sammon who reported in mid-November that the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is set to "spend at least $100 million in 2024 Democratic primaries, largely trained on eliminating incumbent Squad members" including Bowman, Bush, Omar, Lee, and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who had a U.S. Senate candidate reject an offer of $20 million if he instead primaried her, the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Ocasio-Cortez's 2024 campaign said in a Monday email that "AIPAC's top recruit to challenge Jamaal Bowman officially filed his candidacy" and asked supporters to "please chip in right now to help us defend Jamaal and our progressive values."
Along with stressing his support for a cease-fire in Gaza, her campaign pointed out that Bowman is "his district's first Black representative" and "one of the only members of Congress with actual experience working in public education."
Westchester's News 12reported Monday that while Latimer "is preparing a video announcement over the next 24 hours and will formally launch his campaign by Wednesday," he is not Bowman's only challenger—Democratic "Dobbs Ferry investment banker Martin Dolan also plans to run."
While the contest is considered a test of whether politicians can survive criticizing Israel, some observers noted Monday that in March 2021, as many elected officials—including Bowman and Ocasio-Cortez—called on then-Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign over outrage about his Covid-19 pandemic response and sexual misconduct allegations, Latimer said the claims should be taken seriously but also drew a comparison to Emmett Till, which he later retracted.
Who wins the next primary for New York's solidly Democratic 16th District could depend on an effort to replace the GOP-friendly map drawn by a court-appointed expert for the 2022 election cycle. City & Statereported last month that a new order could mean "the Independent Redistricting Commission—which is led by Latimer's deputy, Ken Jenkins—will have the opportunity to change the boundaries."
"The district currently includes much of Westchester and a sliver of the northern Bronx and is home to many Jewish voters who have turned against Bowman," the outlet explained. "Should the district lines change, it will change the dynamics of the race."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Progressives Vow to Oppose Spending Bill With Anti-Migrant Policies
"Progressives reject Republicans' cynical attempt to imperil the lives of people seeking safety to pass this supplemental funding bill," said leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Dec 04, 2023
The U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus said Monday that most of its 103 members would oppose an emergency spending package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan that empowers the Republican House majority to undermine protections for asylum-seekers, reinstate Trump-era travel bans, and implement other anti-immigrant policies.
"As Congress returns this week to consider the president's emergency supplemental funding request for international aid and increased border funding, Republicans are still trying to force their anti-immigrant policies into the legislation," CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Whip Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a statement. "Progressives are clear: We will not play this game."
President Joe Biden requested the $106 billion "national security" spending package in October after Israel launched its retaliatory—and many experts say genocidal—war against Gaza and amid a battlefield stalemate in Russia's 20-month invasion of Ukraine.
Among Biden's asks are $61.4 billion more for Ukraine—which has already received $111 billion from Washington—and $14.3 billion for Israel, which already gets nearly $4 billion each year.
Politico congressional reporter Burgess Everett reported Monday that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has moved for a Wednesday vote on the package, even though he knows it is likely to fail.
"His hope: That the prospect of defeat is enough to make both sides get serious about a deal," Everett wrote.
Schumer said on the Senate floor Monday that "the step I am taking tonight will ensure the process for the supplemental moves forward, and that hopefully disagreements on immigration do not prevent us from doing what we must do to protect America's security."
Republicans in both chambers of Congress are pushing to condition any additional U.S. aid to Ukraine upon what GOP lawmakers call "border security" measures meant to stop migrants including people legally seeking asylum from entering the United States.
As Common Dreams reported Friday, Senate Republicans, backed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), are working to include provisions of the Secure the Border Act—which calls for hiring more U.S. Border Patrol agents, continuing construction of the border wall, and other policies—as part of the broader funding package. GOP lawmakers also want to strip $14.3 billion in funding from the Internal Revenue Service as part of the deal.
"House Republicans are trying the same strategy that continues to fail: Hold Congress hostage to force their cruel, extreme, and unworkable agenda because they can't pass it through the regular legislative process," the CPC leaders said Monday. "This is the strategy that brought us to the brink of economic default and two government shutdowns. Proposed policies would destroy our U.S. asylum system and endanger immigrant lives while making the situation at the border worse, not better."
The lawmakers continued:
Progressives have fought for decades in Congress to advance a comprehensive immigration policy that would uphold U.S. and international law, respect the humanity and dignity of those seeking refuge in this country, and strengthen the U.S. economy. We have passed commonsense legislation with bipartisan majorities. Our members are prepared to work with any colleague who wants to advance thoughtful, holistic, and relevant reforms to create a roadmap to citizenship, increase the efficiency of our asylum system, and more—but this extortion is not going to work.
"Progressives reject Republicans' cynical attempt to imperil the lives of people seeking safety to pass this supplemental funding bill," the trio added. "We call on our Senate Democratic colleagues to stand up for immigrants and the allied communities who sent us to Congress and show Republican extremism for what it is by moving forward an aid package without new anti-immigrant policies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Families Rally for Opioid Accountability as Supreme Court Hears Purdue Case
"I don't want their money," one woman who lost a son to the opioid crisis said of the Sackler family. "I want them in prison."
Dec 04, 2023
At the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, families whose loved ones are among the tens of thousands of Americans who have died of opioid use disorder each year over the past two decades rallied to push the nine justices to reject a proposed bankruptcy plan that would give the former owners of Purdue Pharma legal immunity—with many joining the U.S. Justice Department in arguing that the company should not be released from accountability for the opioid epidemic.
Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy in 2019, as the number of Americans killed by opioids hit 50,000 and the OxyContin manufacturer faced thousands of lawsuits alleging its aggressive marketing of the addictive painkiller had fueled the rising death toll.
The company agreed to settle the lawsuits for $10 billion, with the Sackler family—which oversaw Purdue when OxyContin was introduced and flooded communities across the U.S.—contributing $4 billion. In exchange, the Sacklers would be shielded from future lawsuits.
The bankruptcy plan—which now includes $6 billion from the Sacklers following a push from lawsuit plaintiffs—has been approved by state and local governments, tribes, and families and individuals who would be entitled to money.
But the U.S. Trustee Program, a watchdog at the Justice Department, has joined some families in arguing that the Sacklers should not be shielded from liability for the opioid crisis.
"No Sackler immunity at any $$," read one sign held by a woman outside the Supreme Court on Monday, while another said, "My dead son does not release Sacklers."
The issue at hand in the case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, is whether it is legal to give a third party—the Sackler family—legal immunity in a bankruptcy case even though they themselves have not declared bankruptcy, also known as nonconsensual third-party release.
A lawyer for groups and individuals told the court that families and governments are highly unlikely to get any more out of Purdue and the Sacklers than the money the company and family have offered as part of the deal.
The plan would include $161 million in a trust set aside for Native American tribes and $700 million to $750 million in a trust for families and individuals who were able to file claims, with payouts expected to range from about $3,500 to $48,000. Governments would use the money to set up addiction treatment centers and other programs to mitigate the opioid crisis.
"Forget a better deal—there is no other deal," lawyer Pratik Shah told the Supreme Court on Monday.
Curtis Gannon, representing the U.S. Trustee Program, noted that the Sackler family already showed that a "better deal" could be possible when it offered $6 billion for the plan instead of $4 billion. The Justice Department is advocating for a new settlement that would not include nonconsensual third-party releases, saying the current bankruptcy deal violates federal law.
"We do hope there is another deal at the end of this," said Gannon.
The justices appeared split on the case, in which a ruling is expected next summer. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that appeals courts do not allow bankruptcy plans that take away the rights of alleged victims to sue parties that have not declared bankruptcy.
Outside the court, Alexis Pleus, who lost her son to opioid use disorder, told Aneri Pattani of KFF Health News that many families, including hers, will not be entitled to money under the current deal because they are required to provide records such as the original opioid prescription.
Beth Macy, author of the book Dopesick, told CNN Monday morning that while some families "are divided" about whether the bankruptcy plan and payouts should move forward, as the U.S. Trustee Program "has pointed out, only 20% of the families who were eligible to vote on [the proposal], even voted."
"I don't want their money," Jen Trejo, whose son Christopher was prescribed OxyContin at age 15 and died of an overdose when he was 32, told Pattani. "I want them in prison."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular