(Reuters) - Mallinckrodt plc on Thursday made its final case in support of its proposed reorganization plan, telling the Delaware judge who must sign off on it that the $1.7 billion set aside to resolve lawsuits accusing it of deceptively marketing opioids is a fair settlement. Though the pharmaceutical company has lined up extensive support from state governments, municipalities, individual claimants and creditors for the deal, it still faces a string of objections to the plan that it has been litigating since November before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey in Wilmington. In particular, the state of Rhode Island took issue with legal protections, known as nondebtor releases, the deal grants to company executives who are not themselves in bankruptcy. The dispute mirrors the one in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy. In that case, several states argue that the company’s Sackler family owners should not receive the releases and a judge has ruled that the bankruptcy court that approved them did not have the authority to do so. While the Sacklers contributed $4.5 billion to secure those releases – whose validity will be appealed – Rhode Island argues that the Mallinckrodt executives made no such contribution to warrant the protections. At Thursday"s hearing, Mallinckrodt attorney Christopher Harris of Latham & Watkins argued that the $1.7 billion trust set up for distribution to opioid claimants is enough to justify the releases. Mallinckrodt filed for bankruptcy in October 2020 to resolve widespread litigation brought by states, local governments and private individuals accusing it of deceptive marketing practices with respect to the sale of its opioids, including downplaying the risks of addiction and abuse. The company has spent the past 14 months striking deals with groups representing personal injury claimants and junior creditors, among others, to finalize a deal that would pave its way out of bankruptcy. In addition to the trust it has set up for opioid claimants, the plan cuts $1.3 billion from Mallinckrodt’s $5.3 billion debt stack. Plaintiffs who have sued Mallinckrodt over antitrust violations related to its Acthar gel product, which is used to treat infantile spasms and multiple sclerosis, also opposed the plan. They argued that they are entitled to greater payouts than the less than 1% recoveries the plan provides them. Harris said during Thursday’s hearing that the plan is the product of multiple deals with various stakeholders and the removal of any part could cause the entire plan to collapse. “This was fertile ground for even more litigation than you did see,” Harris said. Dorsey said he would try to rule on the plan soon. The case is In re Mallinckrodt Plc, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, No. 20-12522. For Mallinckrodt: Christopher Harris, George Davis, George Klidonas, Andrew Sorkin, Anupama Yerramalli, Jeff Bjork, Elizabeth Marks and Jason Gott of Latham & Watkins; and Mark Collins, Robert Stearn Jr, Michael Merchant, Amanda Steele, Robert Maddox of Richards, Layton & Finger