Sandy Hook Plaintiffs Worry Remington Bankruptcy Lets the Company Off the Hook

Remington factory Ilion, New York

Remington Arms Company in Ilion, N.Y. (AP Photo/Mike Groll)

Remington has been fighting a long-running court battle against a group of Sandy Hook parents and survivors. While the plaintiffs couldn’t sue Big Green because of the provisions of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the plaintiffs’ attorneys got a court to let the case go forward under a questionable theory that the company had used misleading advertising — unfair trade practices — to sell the Bushmaster rifle that was used to murder 26 people.

That suit has been grinding its way through the courts (and racking up huge legal bills) for more than six years. But Remington recently filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection again and the court could decide shortly on a plan to auction off at least some of the company’s component parts.

From CNBC:

The federal judge overseeing the bankruptcy case, Clifton R. Jessup in Decatur, Alabama, has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday on whether to approve the process, which would see Remington’s various businesses — which operate under the umbrella Remington Outdoor Co. — auctioned off as soon as Sept. 8.

Among those objecting most strenuously to the proposal are the families of nine of the 26 victims of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, which was carried out by a gunman using a Remington-made Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.

The Sandy Hook plaintiffs are worried the bankruptcy could let the company off the hook for the alleged wrongdoing they say contributed to the elementary school shooting. To keep that from happening, they want a seat at the table with creditors to decide how to divvy up Remington’s assets.

In a court filing on Aug. 7, the families said the proposed fast-track auction would “prevent Remington from ever answering for its role in the wrongful marketing of the weapon and that marketing’s causal role in the devastating loss of life at Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

They are asking the judge to slow down the process and to give liability claimants like them a seat on the official committee of unsecured creditors, which will help steer the bankruptcy process.

That’s not likely to happen. And even if it did, they wouldn’t they have enough of a say in the bankruptcy proceedings to make much of a difference.

The bankruptcy filing has also temporarily delayed another suit against Remington stemming from the Model 700 rifle trigger issues the company has been dealing with for more than a decade.

Remington shotgun ammunition


Speculation is that the court could clear the way to sell off the company’s ammunition businesses which includes Remington Ammunition and Barnes Bullets. Other attractive lines include Marlin, AAC and Dakota Arms.

Stay tuned.




  1. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Suit illegal anyway.

    Will be dismissed somewhere along the line

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      The purpose is not necessarily to win. The objective is to negotiate a large $ settlement. They have already scored a victory of sorts. Since Remington has delisted both the Bushmaster and DPMS brands.

      1. avatar arc - the annoying one. says:

        Bushmaster models are now rebranded as Remington models, at least the BA-50 is now some other model.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Para Ordnance left Canada and became Para-USA, and then after production moved to the new Remington facility in Alabama, it became Remington (they were already making Remingtons as well as Paras, then the Paras just disappeared).

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      As there is a law against the lawsuit,Eff em and the Marxist jackass they rode in on.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      The INTENT is to breakup and financially destroy firearms mfg. This being a pilot target for the progs.

      “Sandy Hook plaintiffs” FOAD

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      probably…their whole case is based on a couple of questionable ads..very weak..and should have been dismissed long ago..have to question the courts role in this, as well….

      1. avatar StLPro2A says:

        Can anyone point to a link of those ads?? Would like to see them. Do they advertise the firearms as being just right for killing one’s mother and school children and school staff??? Just pondering.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          Nope, just “you should own our cool Bushmaster AR-15 to be cool and a man” and “you’ll be really tactical if you own a bushmaster”. That kind of stuff.

          Plaintiffs are arguing that somehow enticed the mass murdered in to killing his mother and stealing such a desirable rifle and go on to commit mass murder of children.

          Ignoring any legal right or wrong, why the hell should they have a seat at the table? They aren’t liable at all. They are being sued. There is a big difference. This isn’t a criminal case where you want to make sure the defendant can’t flee or something. And they aren’t declaring bankruptcy strategically to avoid a financial payout in the suit. Its a badly run business that can’t pay its bills anymore.

          If the plaintiffs lost their suit, THEY are potentially liable for legal fees under the PLCAA. And like many other former plaintiffs who end up stuck with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the pro bono lawyers generally disappear and the stupid schmuck who brought the law suit often declare bankruptcy to avoid paying the victims that they sued. Why shouldn’t Remington to be allowed to declare bankruptcy?

  2. avatar Montana Actual says:

    All these people do is worry. Nothing else follows.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Closeout these lawfare cases using any legal means available.

  4. avatar Darkman says:

    Oddly enough the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S was the first AR I purchased. Firstly because I liked the platform and secondly because it was the OG Evil “Black Rifle” in the eyes of the Gun Grabbers. A point I enjoy pointing out to the few I have had the pleasure of ruining their day.

  5. avatar Debbie W. says:

    The nitwits who lured gullible happy go lucky parents into believing their kids were safe beneath Gun Fee Zone Signs are the nitwits liable for damages. Distraught, gullible parents are in camp with the damned enemy.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Distraught, gullible parents are in camp with the damned enemy.”

      People shouldn’t be expected to depend on themselves for their safety. Someone has to pay when the illusion of safety is breached. A GFZ should be what it says. Can’t sue the dead perp; can’t sue the government. Gotta sue someone.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        But they aren’t allowed to sue the snakes who slapped a “Gun Free Zone” label on the kill-box where their children got murdered by a gun-wielding psycho, so…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But they aren’t allowed to sue the snakes who slapped a “Gun Free Zone” label on the kill-box….”

          Because those snakes passed a GFZ of their own, put the signs in place, told anyone who would listen that it was naughty to bring firearms into a GFZ. Announcing and enacting a rise to the moral high ground should be sufficient. Everyone should respect the rejection of firearms is certain locations.

          The actual gun owner should have known her little cutie child would one day flip out, kill her, and go on a shooting spree precisely where it shouldn’t be allowed. The authorities did their job, protected the school with signs. They made a safe place, which is their job. Can’t sue the snakes for doing their job, now can you?

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          a bit unfair to assume they knew something like this was coming…we know better now…their entrance wasn’t secure against that kind of threat…hopefully we’ll get that corrected in the future…

      2. avatar Paul says:

        “People shouldn’t be expected to depend on themselves for their safety.”

        Seriously? I think you’ve just tossed the entire concept of personal responsibility, and made us all wards of the state.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:


          No. I often play the village idiot.

      3. avatar Big Bill says:

        That’s satire, isn’t it?

        Sort of like it’s satire when they ask you to check the “Notify me of follow-up comments by email” box.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That’s satire, isn’t it?”

          Close; it is ridicule.

  6. avatar GS650G says:

    Thanks to this shit a lot of jobs, products and money were lost. They need to face the fact that Looney boy is solely responsible for what happened and the cops who waited outside have limited liability but qualified immunity.
    Mom us dead, the so called mental health experts got off the hook, everything that could be taken and sold is gone.
    All that’s left to take is our rights.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Now you get the point of the lawsuit. It isn’t just to win a huge $$$ settlement, but to establish a legal precedent allowing similar suits against all manufacturers to force them out of business. Just like it was before LCAA. Personally, the whole theory, from a legal perspective smells. If it should prevail, every car manufacturer airing an ad showing one of its cars massively accelerating in a cloud of smoke or blasting down the highway at extralegal speeds (closed course warnings not withstanding) will be subject to identical suits for their “negligent” advertising that encouraged people to drive like maniacs.

      1. avatar Bobsuruncle says:

        Exactly, Remington didn’t pull the trigger (model 700 trigger debacle notwithstanding, those seem to pull themselves). People these days are sue crazy. While it’s understandable to go after a manufacturer for reasonable loss if the product is defective, there should be no case if the product was misused. The operator of a firearm is responsible for every projectile that leaves the barrel, regardless of marketing. The operator of a sports car is responsible for disregarding traffic laws, regardless of horsepower. Fastfood places sell 2000+ calorie lunches, maybe they should pay my health insurance deductible. We are all consumers and are responsible for our purchases. We are also solely responsible for our life choices, decisions, and actions.Common sense is often lost these days.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          they’re searching for leverage…flailing about might be a better description…the courts are supposed to be unbiased…but, as we’ve all seen.. that’s not always the case…

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        Remington didn’t advertise getting a bigger body count (what Looney Boy was scoring other school shooting by), or that it is particularly good for a school shooting. It’s not like Remington even advocated illegal uses for the gun — they just associated it with manliness. This is going back to the origins of the PLCAA where the grabbers were calling manufacturers negligent for making “too many” guns and knowing that some would be used for crime.

  7. avatar MB (the real MB) says:

    One of the biggest mistakes we made as a nation is turning the education of our children over to the government in government run schools. For a million reasons, and there are many viable alternatives. All the elitist academics did was to teach them to hate American and they failed to protect them because children are just pawns and a means to an end.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This ! Look at the nation oof uneducated we have produced thru government education centers, the one thing they have excelled at is turning out willing sheepole.

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      The Real MB,

      Your words are truth.

      Among the homeschooling families with which we associated, you will see an understanding of history, an ability to think critically, and a clear understanding that mainstream media and entertainment are designed to hide the truth and control our behavior.

  8. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I hope some decent, well run company buys the shotgun division and continues some of the product lines.

  9. avatar enuf says:

    What is most tragic about this lawsuit is what it accomlpished. It taken the root cause of lousy mental health care practices, a broken system waiting for a death or deaths to take place and moved all attention off the core issue and cause.

    The insane child that comitted this atrocity was himself failed by be the society that ignored him, his growing anger and growing loss of reason.

    No law directed at firearms could have stopped this killing.

    The kinds of laws we once had would have placed the future killer under observation and treatment.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      One should never confuse Crazy with Evil. That’s what lawyers do to get their clients off. Crazy people don’t know they’re crazy. This scumbag as well as others knew he was Evil.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Crazy belongs in a secure psychiatric hospital where treatment is at least theoretically possible. Evil belongs in a prison cell. Either option costs money no one is willing to spend.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          True. Worse, no one is talking about either. All they want to talk about is the guns. As if that had anything to do with the evil and the crazy.

        2. avatar rt66paul says:

          Another thing we have to realize is that it was Republicans that emptied out the mental hospitals, this leaves people in big cities to deal with the mentally ill homeless.

          As a country, we need to spend money for society’s sake. This does not mean raising single parent families, it means taking care of the truly incompetent. Most of the mentally challenged are not violent, but they do not need to be living on our streets, sidewalks, in parks and school grounds.

        3. avatar Anymouse says:

          The ACLU proudly takes credit for it on their website and points to their Wyatt litigation. Just look for Mental Institutions in the history section of their website.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          “One month prior to the election, President Carter had signed the Mental Health Systems Act, which had proposed to continue the federal community mental health centers program, although with some additional state involvement. Consistent with the report of the Carter Commission, the act also included a provision for federal grants “for projects for the prevention of mental illness and the promotion of positive mental health,” an indication of how little learning had taken place among the Carter Commission members and professionals at NIMH. With President Reagan and the Republicans taking over, the Mental Health Systems Act was discarded before the ink had dried and the CMHC funds were simply block granted to the states. The CMHC program had not only died but been buried as well. An autopsy could have listed the cause of death as naiveté complicated by grandiosity.”

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          “1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.”

  10. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

    I understand grieving and the sense you need closure by punishing the evil doer. On this case the killer is dead. Those who failed his family are nowhere to be found. So a attorney with questionable ethics finds a class action he hopes will make him famous and potentially rich. He preys on the grieving and offers them that closure by going after the firearms manufacturer. There are several others who bear responsibility for thier failures and none of them have the potential for a monetary and political payoff as Remington does. So Remington must bear that wrath, not because they did something liable, but they have money.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      that’s basically “lawyerthink” 101….follow the money….

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Sandy Hook Plaintiffs Worry Remington Bankruptcy Lets the Company Off the Hook”

    Remington shouldn’t be “on the hook” to begin with…

      1. avatar Bobsuruncle says:

        Yes. Remington didn’t pull the trigger. The shooter is responsible. The mother for having guns in the house with this nut, locks only discourage honest thieves or slow down the rest. The father for not being, well, a father. The psychologist for not alerting the authorities or committing the kid.

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          In most states, it is very hard to commit someone to a mental hospital. Even those that end up in jail(who actually need a hospital)don’t get treatment. Hospitalization is cheaper than a jail cell, but they won’t do it.

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “In most states, it is very hard to commit someone to a mental hospital.”

          Hey, paul- you think that is a bad thing? Maybe it should be as easy as taking someone’s firearms in a “Red Flag” state, huh?

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Unless their advertising claimed it’s okay to kill school children.
      If the evil POS murderer used gasoline to burn down the school, would they go after Bic and Texaco?

  12. avatar Hannibal says:

    In other words “our legal team wants a payday for this political stunt and we know that this is the only way we can get one!”

  13. avatar D says:

    If IF Remington is guilty of misleading advertising or some other advertising BS, the shooter did not buy the rifle. His mother did, / and he murdered he to get it. Advertising had Nottingham do with it

    The attorney that brought the suit should be disbarred and jailed

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Tarred and feathered with real hot tar. Along with any and all judges who allowed the case to reach a trial.

  14. avatar Prndll says:

    Since this has now become precedent, I want Twitter takin down for the harm that it does to its users.

  15. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m sorry that people who lost their children have turned into greedy douchebags.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      .don’t think the parents are really after the money…they just want someone to blame for what, the lawyers…well…that’s a different story….

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I’m sorry that people who lost their children have turned into greedy douchebags.”

      If my child had been murdered in school, I would be devastated, hurt, furious, beside myself. I would want to hurt someone back; revenge. I understand the parents trying to make someone pay. I understand, but do not endorse. I hope I would be able to rise above my emotions and see the world for what it is: killers kill, not tools.

  16. avatar Charlemagne says:

    Real justice here would involve not only dismissing this bogus case but socking the plaintiffs with Remington’s attorney’s fees!

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      In which case they’ll whine about how unfair it is, as the families led on by the Brady Campaign did after the Aurora CO theater shooting, and the anti-gun media will sympathize with their being “further victimized” by the evil gun company.

  17. avatar Matthew says:

    I’d love to see Ruger buy Marlin…

  18. avatar burley says:

    Remington has never been on any legal hook. This is not about rule of law…

  19. avatar Jeff says:

    Everybody who has read or watched the news knows that Remington is liable. They produce these weapons of war so they can be used by sociopaths to kill as many people as they can. Remington and the NRA hates children and encourages this type of thing. Vote Biden/Harris and the killing will stop. We need to be more like Britain where even attempting self defense is illegal.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “We need to be more like Britain where even attempting self defense is illegal.”

      Some here won’t be happy that you didn’t include the sarc tag.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email