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/2026-09-08-16-22-17-498-6aa036398307ddbad283b845.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/MediaLibrary/Images/2026-09-03-21-41-39-457-6a99e9935710efa6a5d0fce1.png)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-09-02-18-14-20-575-6a98677cb63b3ba3a109951c.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-08-31-14-49-31-397-6a95947b3e6785a458443a3a.jpg)