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/2026-02-05-21-16-34-432-698508b2d97369bdf1cc4027.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-04-17-00-16-706-69837b20b70b31132e80d8ea.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-04-10-05-37-590-698319f15f594bf3ef33a6cd.jpg)
/Passle/5fb3c068e5416a1144288bf8/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-03-16-57-40-667-698229041d702b3a6167dad7.jpg)