I guess there's a spectrum - at one end are consensual settlements, in the middle somewhere are non-consensual settlements of claims where party A is suing party B because party B did something to reduce the value of party A's claim in the bankruptcy estate, and at the most controversial end (like this case) are non-consensual settlements of cases where party A sues both the bankrupt company and party B over something they both did.
The fact that this got overturned on initial appeal and then the original agreement reinstated on further appeal does suggest that it's at least legally controversial.
The arguments made by the court seem reasonable enough (that this may be the best chance for those suing the Sacklers to get any money out of them given the jurisdiction and counterclaim issues, and that the litigation would likely be expensive and time-consuming if it were to proceed) but I suppose it will strike many as odd that a bankruptcy court gets to make that judgment (and without actually hearing the cases themselves).
The fact that this got overturned on initial appeal and then the original agreement reinstated on further appeal does suggest that it's at least legally controversial.
The arguments made by the court seem reasonable enough (that this may be the best chance for those suing the Sacklers to get any money out of them given the jurisdiction and counterclaim issues, and that the litigation would likely be expensive and time-consuming if it were to proceed) but I suppose it will strike many as odd that a bankruptcy court gets to make that judgment (and without actually hearing the cases themselves).