Benjamin Kaminetzky, Davis Polk Wardwell

OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma asked the U.S. Supreme Court to toss out the state of Arizona's proposed filing in an attempt to "claw back" billions of dollars in transfers from its founders, the Sackler family.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, in a motion to file a bill of complaint, had asked the Supreme Court to intervene in its opioid lawsuit less than two months before Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Sept. 15. His July 31 filing said the Sacklers made "massive cash transfers—totaling billions of dollars—at a time when Purdue faced enormous exposure for its role in fueling the opioids crisis." The state of Arizona, which is seeking to enforce a 2007 consent judgment with Purdue, asked the Supreme Court to step in.

On Wednesday, Purdue said the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction given its petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

"The bankruptcy court will consider all fraudulent transfer claims in a single proceeding—a proceeding created by Congress to handle precisely this type of situation with consistency and fairness," wrote Purdue attorney Benjamin Kaminetzky of Davis Polk & Wardwell in New York. "As a result, Purdue, as a debtor in possession exercising the powers of a bankruptcy trustee, has exclusive authority to assert all fraudulent transfer claims pertaining to the debtor during the pendency of the bankruptcy. Thus, Arizona may no longer assert this claim, and it is no longer within this court's original jurisdiction."

With him on the brief were Marc Tobak, of counsel, and associate Gerard McCarthy.

Brnovich, a Republican, has brought in a legal team that includes Ashley Keller and Travis Lenkner of Chicago's Keller Lenkner and William Consovoy at Consovoy McCarthy in Washington, D.C., who also represents President Donald Trump in legal battles with Congress over the president's financial records.

The proposed bill of complaint before the Supreme Court implicates more than the state of Arizona. Attorneys general in Alaska, Ohio, Louisiana, North Dakota and Utah, all of whom are Republicans, filed a combined amicus brief Sept. 26 supporting Arizona.

Further, more than two dozen states, including Arizona, and hundreds of cities, counties and other governments, fought in bankruptcy court this month against motions Purdue filed to halt their opioid cases, which are in state courts across the country. Purdue's injunction motions included cases against the Sacklers, who have agreed to contribute $3 billion toward the company's proposed settlement of more than 2,600 lawsuits over the opioid crisis.

On Oct. 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain granted Purdue's injunction motions to stay the lawsuits through Nov. 6.

Drain intended that the stay apply to Arizona's filing before the Supreme Court, wrote Purdue attorney Kaminetzky in Wednesday's brief. Further, he wrote, the Supreme Court has long held that it had discretion to accept or reject jurisdiction over matters between a state and citizens of another state.

Arizona, in its proposed bill complaint, acknowledged that precedent but insisted that its case had facts warranting Supreme Court jurisdiction, namely the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which most states have adopted.

"Only this court can resolve this pressing national issue in a uniform and timely manner," the state's lawyers wrote.