Gun maker’s bankruptcy stalls Sandy Hook families suit

The lawsuit brought by family members of those killed in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has been watched closely over years of winding its way through the court system. But a new hurdle stands in the way of a much-awaited ruling.

Remington, one of the nation’s oldest gunmakers and a defendant in the lawsuit, recently filed for bankruptcy as its sales have declined and debts have mounted. The company manufactured the AR-15-style weapon used by the attacker in the 2012 attack in Newtown, Conn., in which 26 people, including 20 first-graders, were killed.

The case is now before the Connecticut Supreme Court, where families brought an appeal with the aim of bringing the case to a jury trial. Remington’s bankruptcy does not guard the company from potential liability, but it has stalled the court from issuing a ruling on the lawsuit until the company emerges from the process. The court has been weighing the case after hearing oral arguments last year.

The families’ lawyers contend that the bankruptcy will ultimately have little influence on the case’s viability. “The bankruptcy proceeding doesn’t affect our claim,” said Katie Mesner Hage, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs; nine families who had a relative killed and a teacher who was shot and survived. “The only thing the process does is delay it to some degree.”

The lawsuit has high stakes for both gun companies and guncontrol advocates since it is testing a novel strategy to find a route around the broad protections granted by federal law that shield the companies from litigation if their product is used to commit a crime. Supporters contend that the case, if it makes it to trial, could offer a glimpse into how the gun industry operates and possibly provide a road map for the survivors and relatives of victims in other mass shootings who have otherwise been hamstrung in pursuing legal action.

Remington will remain in business as it reorganizes and unloads hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, according to court records. Remington’s lawyers did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The military-style rifle used in the attack was made by Bushmaster, which was bought by a private-equity fund in 2006. Cerberus Capital Management eventually folded Bushmaster into Remington along with other gun companies.

Congress granted gun companies industrywide immunity from blame when one of their products is used in a crime. But the law, enacted in 2005, includes exceptions for sale and marketing practices that violate state or federal laws and instances of so-called negligent entrustment, in which a gun is carelessly given or sold to a person posing a high risk of misusing it.

The lawsuit argues that Remington — along with a wholesaler and dealer, which were also named in the suit — erred by entrusting an untrained civilian public with a weapon designed for maximizing fatalities on the battlefield. It also asserts that the companies relied on advertising, with messages of combat dominance and slogans like “Consider your man card reissued,” that appealed specifically to disturbed young men like Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old attacker.

The gun companies contend that federal law shields them from the families’ claims, and a lower court judge agreed, dismissing the lawsuit in 2016.