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/2026-07-16-14-16-48-372-6a58e7d0ea2dd4e542dac03a.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-07-15-22-29-35-744-6a5809cfa048136c79fef646.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-07-08-18-45-20-149-6a4e9ac0080b3c6267c648c8.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-07-08-13-56-31-887-6a4e570f093eaf1ea0f7608d.jpg)