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/2025-12-19-22-18-58-293-6945cf525f578b1a57f595e9.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2025-12-19-22-01-57-388-6945cb559b03a4fc9268a992.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2025-12-19-18-27-56-527-6945992c5f578b1a57f46097.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2025-12-17-19-05-27-568-6942fef76438b978e7e9cbbe.jpg)