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/2026-01-06-19-46-56-840-695d66b05e53f47fe01ee33e.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/MediaLibrary/Images/2026-01-02-18-09-06-772-695809c20d2bbffa0badb75b.png)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2025-12-29-19-54-37-071-6952dc7d700e0945548f1415.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2025-12-29-14-41-59-125-69529337ad04586c3adab74f.jpg)