Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Last updated
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 4, 2023
Decided June 27, 2024
Full case nameWilliam K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.
Docket no. 23-124
Citations603 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
PriorBankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order and related Advance Order vacated, In re Purdue Pharma, 635 B.R. 26 (S.D.N.Y., 2021), order affirmed in part, reversed in part, In re Purdue Pharma LP, 69 F. 4th 45 (2nd Cir., May 30, 2023); cert. granted (Aug. 10, 2023)
Questions presented
Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.
Holding
The bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Jackson
DissentKavanaugh, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
Title 11 of the United States Code

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ___ (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. [1] The case addressed the 2022-2023 Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement and whether, under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release extinguishing claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent could move forward. Following deliberations, the justices determined that the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize the claimant's order, blocking the bankruptcy plan.

Contents

Background

In 1995, Purdue Pharma developed and produced OxyContin, a semi-synthetic opioid. It was subsequently approved by the Food and Drug Administration. From 1996 to 2001, Purdue Pharma extensively marketed OxyContin to both doctors and patients, claiming the drug had little to no risk of addiction. During this period of outreach and marketing, six members of the Sackler family sat on the company's board, including Richard Sackler, who was closely associated with the implementation of the company's deceptive marketing strategy. [2] As a result, prescription and use of the drug increased drastically, coinciding with increased rates of abuse across the nation. This subsequently resulted in what is now known as the opioid epidemic in the United States. [3]

From 2000, the side effects of opioids were starting to be more prevalent, resulting in an influx of lawsuits in the years afterward.

Anticipating that they might be liable in these lawsuits, both civilly and criminally, the Sackler family decided to reallocate revenue from Purdue Pharma to their own trusts and holding companies. This reduced the financial standing of Purdue Pharma to fend off the lawsuits. Eventually, by 2019, all Sackler family members that were on the board of directors of Purdue Pharma had resigned.

In 2019, the Department of Justice (DoJ) brought criminal and civil charges against Purdue Pharma, alleging that its actions defrauded the United States and violated federal kick-back statutes. [3]

In the same year, Purdue Pharma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, whereas the Sackler family did not. [3] As part of its bankruptcy proceedings, Purdue Pharma sought an injunctive stay on all the lawsuits, towards the company and the Sacklers.

Lower Courts

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York sided with Purdue Pharma and granted the stay. In accordance to the Bankruptcy Code, a mediation was opened to avoid the liquidation of the company. Eventually, a plan was agreed by the company, the Sacklers and 15 other non-consenting states. The $8.3 Billion settlement deal would oversee the restructuring of Purdue Pharma and the redistribution of financial relief to the families of opioid victims in payments ranging from $26,000 and $40,000. [4] [5] In addition, the settlement would result in the enjoinment of any third-party lawsuits against the Sacklers and the protection of the Sacklers from disclosing certain internal information from creditors and state officials. [6]

This agreement was eventually agreed to by judge Robert Drain [7] as it was deemed to have satisfied 3 of the court's criteria. [8] Soon after, the bankruptcy plan was challenged by additional states, appealing to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, which reversed and vacated the Bankruptcy Court's ruling, deeming the Bankruptcy Code did not permit these "third-parties" releases. [9] [10]

The District Court ruling was subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. [11] The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, reaffirming the Bankruptcy Court ruling; and held that the approval of the releases was permissible as the Bankruptcy Court had "Statutory Authority" consistent with Second Circuit case law. [12] Representing the United States Bankruptcy Trustees, the Justice Department appealed the Circuit Court decision to the Supreme Court, urging for a stay on the lower court's decision and for a review of the entire bankruptcy proceeding, describing the settlement as an "unprecedented agreement" that would protect the Sackler's family from opioid-related civil claims. [13] [14] On August 10, 2023, the Supreme Court granted a stay in the lower court's decision and granted certiorari; with oral arguments occurring on December 4, 2023. [15] [16]

Supreme Court

Oral arguments

Oral arguments were heard December 3, 2023. [17] Representing the Federal Government, Former Deputy Solicitor General Curtis E. Gannon argued that Section 1123(b)(6) did not permit for the release of the Sacklers, as nonconsensual third-party releases are not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code given they extinguish property rights that do not belong to the bankruptcy estate. [18] Pratik A. Shah argued on behalf of The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P. while Gregory Gare argued on behalf of Purdue Pharma. [19] In his argument, Gare contended that the notion that all non-consensual third-party releases are invalid was contradicted by Section 1123(b)(6), as it provides for "any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with" other bankruptcy laws to be used. [20] [18] Shah provided similar arguments in favor of a broader reading of Section 1123(b)(6) and emphasized the direct effects such an interpretation would have on the victims. [21] In doing so, Shah noted that if such a determination was not adopted by the court, a vast majority of opioid victims would not receive financial compensation, as, given the $40 trillion worth of lawsuits that stood against Purdue and the Sacklers, the first successful lawsuit would likely result in such a large payout that it would eliminate any recovery for additional victims in future lawsuits. [22] Justice Kavanaugh appeared sympathetic towards the arguments presented by Gare, stating that such language appeared to be sufficiently broad and well-supported, as there had been 30 years’ worth of practice in the bankruptcy courts approving the release and indemnification from liability by a company of its officers or directors who are parties in such cases. [20] [23] Justices Gorsuch and Jackson conversely questioned Gare's position on the broadness of the provision arguing that the terminology of 'appropriate' garnered some limitations in terms of what was applicable. [18]

Majority

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the Court's majority opinion Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch Official Portrait.jpg
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the Court's majority opinion

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson overturned the bankruptcy settlement. [24] [25] In his opinion, Gorsuch contended that federal bankruptcy laws did not allow for the non-consensual third-party release and injunction of the Sackler family from criminal liability without the consent of the creditors and opioid victims. [26] [27] According to Gorsuch, provision §1123(b)(6), which indicates a bankruptcy plan may "include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with" other bankruptcy laws, does not give the bankruptcy courts broad powers in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. [28] [29] As such, this "catchall" provision did not permit for any and all bankruptcy provisions to be inserted into a reorganization plan, but rather, only those applying to scenarios in the preceding subsections of §1123(b). [28] Given all similar preceding scenarios involved either debtors or responsibilities to creditors, only provisions relating to either were permissible. [29] [30] Given this, whether or not the Sackler family were permitted to move forward with the non-consensual third-party release required an affirmative determination that they were considered to be 'debtors'. [31]

The obtainment of a release of a debtor's debt liability requires "virtually all [of its] assets" to be put on the table; an action which Gorsuch determined to not have been taken by the Sackler family as they maintained billions of dollars in profit accrued from Purdue Pharma and avoided personal Bankruptcy. [29] [30] Additionally, such a discharge also typically operated only for a debtor's benefit against its creditors and didn't extend to additional creditor claims of fraud or willful or malicious injury. [31] Given such actions were, respectively, not taken by or accurate of the Sackler family, the family were not determined to be 'debtors' but rather 'nondebtors', and were therefore not subject to the benefit of the non-consensual non-debtor claim extinguishment permitted by Chapter 11. [32] [31] As such, Gorsuch determined that the subsequent "catchall" provision "cannot be fairly read to endow a bankruptcy court with the 'radically different' power to discharge the debts of a nondebtor without the consent of affected nondebtor claimants". [28] [29] Gorsuch again contended that the non-consensual release of nondebtor liability by bankruptcy laws was only utilized in asbestos-related bankruptcies, and whose limited authorized use "makes it all the more unlikely" that such a "catchall" provision would be interpreted to approve such releases in all scenarios. [29] [33] Such a release could therefore not move forward as, even the 'broad equitable powers' of the bankruptcy courts that would allow for such a release, could only move forward when such actions were deemed "necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of" the bankruptcy code, which was determined not to be the case. [30]

Dissent

Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the Court's dissenting opinion Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh Official Portrait.jpg
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the Court's dissenting opinion

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts alongside Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. [34] [35] In his opinion, Kavanaugh wrote that federal bankruptcy law provides bankruptcy courts with the "broad discretion to approve 'appropriate' plan provisions" and to ensure that a bankrupt company’s assets are preserved and distributed fairly among its creditors rather than going to whoever can file a lawsuit first. [29] The bankruptcy system itself therefore played a role in addressing what Kavanaugh referred to as the "problem of collective action", in which a few successful lawsuits from creditors would deplete the bankrupt party's funds in such a manner that any remaining creditors would be left without compensation. [36] In properly facilitating the systems role of limiting such a problem, The Bankruptcy Code should naturally be read to be afforded broad deference in reorganization consistent with such a "catchall" provision. [36] Kavanaugh also reasoned that, given a company such as Purdue typically pays for claims against company officials, those officials may be shielded from liability as part of the bankruptcy plan, particularly when the officials are willing to contribute money to settle the bankruptcy. [29] Concluding his opinion, Kavanaugh noted the real-world effects of the abrogation of such a settlement, writing: "The opioid victims and their families are deprived of their hard-won relief. And the communities devastated by the opioid crisis are deprived of the funding needed to help prevent and treat opioid addiction [...] As a result of the Court's decision, each victim and creditor receives the essential equivalent of a lottery ticket for a possible future recovery for (at most) a few of them". [37] [38]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oxycodone</span> Opioid medication

Oxycodone, sold under the brand name Roxicodone and OxyContin among others, is a semi-synthetic opioid used medically for treatment of moderate to severe pain. It is highly addictive and is a commonly abused drug. It is usually taken by mouth, and is available in immediate-release and controlled-release formulations. Onset of pain relief typically begins within fifteen minutes and lasts for up to six hours with the immediate-release formulation. In the United Kingdom, it is available by injection. Combination products are also available with paracetamol (acetaminophen), ibuprofen, naloxone, naltrexone, and aspirin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur M. Sackler</span> American physician and executive

Arthur Mitchell Sackler was an American psychiatrist and marketer of pharmaceuticals whose fortune originated in medical advertising and trade publications. He was also an art collector. He was one of the three patriarchs of the controversial Sackler family pharmaceutical dynasty.

Robert Steven "Steve" Miller Jr. is an American businessman. He was chief executive officer of Hawker Beechcraft from 2012 to 2013, non-executive chairman at American International Group and on the board of directors at Symantec. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Purdue Pharma, Inc. since July 1, 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences</span> Medical school in Israel

The Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences is a medical school affiliated with Tel Aviv University, located in Tel Aviv, Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary Jo White</span> American attorney

Mary Jo White is an American attorney who served as the 31st chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from 2013 to 2017. She was the first woman to be the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, serving from 1993 to 2002. On January 24, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated White to replace Elisse B. Walter as Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. She was confirmed by the Senate on April 8, 2013, and was sworn into office on April 10, 2013. In 2014, she was listed as the 73rd most powerful woman in the world by Forbes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Purdue Pharma</span> American pharmaceutical company (1892–2019 bankruptcy)

Purdue Pharma L.P., formerly the Purdue Frederick Company (1892–2019), was an American privately held pharmaceutical company founded by John Purdue Gray. It was sold to Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sackler in 1952, and then owned principally by the Sackler family and their descendants.

Raymond Sackler was an American physician and businessman. He acquired Purdue Pharma together with his brothers Arthur M. Sackler and Mortimer Sackler. Purdue Pharma is the developer of OxyContin, the drug at the center of the opioid epidemic in the United States.

Mortimer David Sackler was an American-born psychiatrist and entrepreneur. He co-owned Purdue Pharma with his brothers Arthur and Raymond. During his lifetime, Sackler's philanthropy included donations to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Tate Gallery, the Royal College of Art, the Louvre, and Berlin's Jewish Museum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert D. Drain</span> American judge

Robert D. Drain is a former United States bankruptcy judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York who has presided at several high-profile corporate bankruptcies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Sackler</span> American billionaire (born 1945)

Richard Stephen Sackler is an American businessman and physician who was the chairman and president of Purdue Pharma, a former company best known as the developer of OxyContin, whose role in the opioid epidemic in the United States became the subject of many lawsuits and fines, filing for bankruptcy in 2019. The company's downfall was the subject of the 2021 Hulu miniseries Dopesick and the 2023 Netflix miniseries Painkiller, in which Sackler is portrayed by Michael Stuhlbarg and Matthew Broderick, respectively.

Massachusetts v. Purdue is a lawsuit filed on August 14, 2018, suing the Stamford, Connecticut-based company Purdue Pharma LP, which created and manufactures OxyContin, "one of the most widely used and prescribed opioid drugs on the market", and Purdue's owners, the Sacklers accusing them of "widespread fraud and deception in the marketing of opioids, and contributing to the opioid crisis, the nationwide epidemic that has killed thousands." Purdue denied the allegations.

Barry Meier is a writer and former New York Times journalist who wrote the 2003 non-fiction book Pain Killer: A Wonder Drug's Trail of Addiction and Death. His articles "have led to Congressional hearings and changes in federal laws".

The Sackler family is an American family who owned the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma and later founded Mundipharma. Purdue Pharma, and some members of the family, have faced lawsuits regarding overprescription of addictive pharmaceutical drugs, including OxyContin. Purdue Pharma has been criticized for its role in the opioid epidemic in the United States. They have been described as the "most evil family in America", and "the worst drug dealers in history".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of the opioid epidemic</span>

The timeline of the opioid epidemic includes selected events related to the origins of Stamford, Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma, the Sackler family, the development and marketing of oxycodone, selected FDA activities related to the abuse and misuse of opioids, the recognition of the opioid epidemic, the social impact of the crisis, lawsuits against Purdue and the Sackler family.

<i>The Crime of the Century</i> (2021 film) American documentary film

The Crime of the Century is an American two-part documentary film directed, produced, and written by Alex Gibney. The film follows the opioid epidemic in the United States, and the political operatives, government regulations and corporations that enable the abuse of opioids, particularly the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma.

Joss Sackler is a fashion designer. She is also known for her marriage to David Sackler, whose father Richard Sackler was the chairman and president of Purdue Pharma, and oversaw its manufacturing of the highly addictive opioid Oxycontin, a leading drug in the opioid epidemic.

Fernando Luis Alvarez is a Colombian-American art gallerist, artist, activist, patron of the arts, and philanthropist based in Stamford, Connecticut. He is known as the founder of his eponymous art gallery, Alvarez Gallery. He is also the founder of Clementina Arts Foundation, The Spoon Movement, The Curtain Movement, and vice-chair of The Global Recovery Movement.

Curtis Wright IV is an American former government official known for his role in the Food and Drug Administration's approval of OxyContin for Purdue Pharma in 1995, followed by his subsequent employment by the company, which led to portrayals in films and reports in nonfiction books, magazines, and news media outlets of his alleged role as one of the key figures in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Wright was implicated in a criminal conspiracy outlined in a 2006 United States Department of Justice review document that was first made public in Purdue Pharma's 2019 bankruptcy proceedings. Although that case was settled in a 2007 plea agreement deal, members of United States Congress have requested the full 2006 documentation from the Department of Justice with the goal of opening a new case based upon the evidence then gathered. Parts of Wright's sworn depositions in 2003 and 2018 have internal contradictions and differ from documentary evidence described the 2003–2006 U.S. Federal Government investigation into Purdue Pharma.

Painkiller is an American drama television miniseries created by Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster. Based on Patrick Radden Keefe's New Yorker article "The Family That Built an Empire of Pain" and Pain Killer: An Empire of Deceit and the Origin of America's Opioid Epidemic by Barry Meier, the series focuses on the birth of the opioid crisis, with an emphasis on Purdue Pharma, the company owned by Richard Sackler and his family that was the manufacturer of OxyContin. The Sackler family has been described as the "most evil family in America", and "the worst drug dealers in history".

References

  1. ↑ "Justices put Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan on hold". SCOTUSblog. 2023-08-10. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  2. ↑ Totenberg, Nina (December 4, 2023). "Purdue Pharma, Sacklers' OxyContin settlement lands at the Supreme Court". NPR . Retrieved August 26, 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 "In re: Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 22-110 (2d Cir. 2023)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  4. ↑ Mann, Brian (October 21, 2020). "Purdue Pharma Reaches $8B Opioid Deal With Justice Department Over OxyContin Sales". NPR . Retrieved August 26, 2024.
  5. ↑ Bebinger, Martha (September 28, 2021). "The Purdue Pharma Deal Would Deliver Billions, But Individual Payouts Will Be Small". NPR . Retrieved August 26, 2024.
  6. ↑ Hafen, Nick (December 4, 2023). "Purdue Pharma's Bankruptcy Case, Explained". The Dispatch . Retrieved August 8, 2024.
  7. ↑ "Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family reach $6 billion OxyContin settlement : NPR". npr.org. Retrieved 2024-06-29.
  8. ↑ "Harrington v. Purdue Pharma (In re Purdue Pharma ), 21 cv 7969 (CM) | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com. Retrieved 2023-09-10.
  9. ↑ Ochsner, Evan (November 29, 2023). "Purdue Confronts Supreme Court Skeptical of Bankruptcy Power". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved August 8, 2024.
  10. ↑ Quinn, Melissa (December 4, 2023). "Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that shields Sackler family faces Supreme Court arguments". CBS News . Retrieved August 8, 2024.
  11. ↑ Laise, Eleanor (December 1, 2023). "Supreme Court set to hear Purdue Pharma case that could shake up opioid settlement — and the bankruptcy process". Market Watch . Retrieved August 8, 2024.
  12. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence (August 10, 2023). "Supreme Court puts Purdue Pharma bankruptcy deal on hold". NBC News . Retrieved August 8, 2024.
  13. ↑ Martin, Craig; Ehrlich Albanese, Rachel. "Limiting chapter 11 as a tool for collective resolution of mass tort liabilities". DLA Piper . Retrieved August 8, 2024.
  14. ↑ Cole, Devan; de Vogue, Ariane (2023-08-10). "Supreme Court blocks $6 billion opioid settlement that would have given the Sackler family immunity | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved 2023-08-11.
  15. ↑ Stohr, Greg (August 10, 2023). "Supreme Court Halts Purdue's Opioid Pact, Will Hear Appeal (2)". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved August 9, 2024.
  16. ↑ "HARRINGTON, WILLIAM K. V. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., ET AL. (CERTIORARI GRANTED)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
  17. ↑ "The Supreme Court is torn over Purdue Pharma's opioid settlement". The Economist . December 5, 2023. Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  18. 1 2 3 Howe, Amy (December 4, 2023). "Court conflicted over Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that shields Sacklers from liability". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  19. ↑ Dwyer, Devan (December 4, 2023). "Supreme Court wrestles with Purdue Pharma settlement and legal shield for Sackler family". ABC News . Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  20. 1 2 Gumport, Leonard. "SUPREME COURT HEARS ORAL ARGUMENT IN PURDUE PHARMA CASE". California Lawyers Association . Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  21. ↑ Quinn, Melissa (December 4, 2023). "Supreme Court wrestles with legal shield for Sackler family in Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan". CBS News . Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  22. ↑ Fritze, John (December 4, 2023). "Supreme Court split on whether the Sackler family can be sued over opioid crisis". USA Today . Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  23. ↑ Barnes, Robert; Ovalle, David (December 4, 2023). "Supreme Court appears torn during Purdue opioid settlement arguments". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 17, 2024.
  24. ↑ Fritze, John; Cole, Devan (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court rejects multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma opioid settlement that shielded Sackler family". CNN . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  25. ↑ Sherman, Mark (June 27, 2024). "The Supreme Court rejects a nationwide opioid settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma". The Associated Press . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  26. ↑ VanSickle, Abbie (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court Jeopardizes Opioid Deal, Rejecting Protections for Sacklers". The New York Times . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  27. ↑ Ovalle, David; Jouvenal, Justin (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement". The Washington Post . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  28. 1 2 3 Kanute, Nathan (July 18, 2024). "SCOTUS Decides Against Sacklers' Release in Purdue Pharma". Snell & Wilmer . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Howe, Amy (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court blocks OxyContin bankruptcy plan". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  30. 1 2 3 "Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. and the Future of Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Bankruptcy". O'Melveny & Myers . July 2, 2024. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  31. 1 2 3 Harrell, Alex; Taticchi, Mark (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court Decides Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P." Faegre Drinker . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  32. ↑ Mole, Beth (June 17, 2024). "SCOTUS tears down Sacklers' immunity, blowing up opioid settlement". Ars Technica . Retrieved June 28, 2024.
  33. ↑ McGreal, Michelle; Fung, Katherine; Deutsch, Douglas (July 10, 2024). "Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Ruling Sidesteps Chapter 15 Implications". Bloomberg Law . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  34. ↑ Mann, Brian; Totenberg, Nina (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court rejects controversial Purdue Pharma bankruptcy deal". NPR . Retrieved August 26, 2024.
  35. ↑ "Purdue Pharma and the Supreme Court". The Wall Street Journal . June 28, 2024. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  36. 1 2 Chung, Justin; Pepper, Alexander (July 17, 2024). "Harrington v. Purdue Pharma: Supreme Court Holds That a Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan Cannot Include a Nonconsensual Release of Claims Against Non-Debtors". CRS . Retrieved October 20, 2024.
  37. ↑ Janson, Bart; Groppe, Maureen (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court throws out multi-billion dollar settlement with Purdue over opioid crisis". USA Today . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
  38. ↑ Quinn, Melissa (June 27, 2024). "Supreme Court rejects Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that shielded Sackler family". CBS News . Retrieved July 29, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.