On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson; Kavanaugh for the dissent, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.
The majority opinion notes several times that the Sacklers – who withdrew $11 billion from the company between 2008 and 2016 – “have not placed virtually all of their assets on the table for distribution to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a discharge.” This does not necessarily mean the Court would have ruled otherwise had the plan contribution offered by the Sacklers approached the $11 billion figure, rather, it could reflect the Justices’ view that a larger sum would have led to consensual third party releases, a concept the Court does not take issue with.
The ruling today resolves one significant bankruptcy Circuit split, but expressly avoids another: equitable mootness. The opinion notes, “we do not address whether our reading of the bankruptcy code would justify unwinding reorganization plans that have already become effective and been substantially consummated.”


/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-26-20-03-57-279-69a0a72d792e8f94e74a5f8f.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-26-15-38-05-687-69a068dd52230663c9bc30b8.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-25-17-09-54-783-699f2ce2b208a223bd0a9bec.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-24-14-42-59-913-699db8f358651e09b88df5fb.jpg)