Harrington v. Purdue Pharma (2024)

1) Link to the Actual Opinion
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF)

2) Summary of the Opinion
Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy to resolve thousands of lawsuits over its role in the opioid epidemic. The plan released members of the Sackler family (who owned Purdue but were not themselves debtors) from liability in exchange for a multibillion-dollar contribution. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize non-consensual third-party releases like the one shielding the Sacklers.

3) Why It Mattered
The ruling blocked a controversial settlement and clarified that bankruptcy courts cannot discharge claims against non-debtors without claimants’ consent. It was a major decision in mass tort and bankruptcy law.

4) What It Provided or Took Away

• Provided: Limits on the power of bankruptcy courts; reaffirmed creditor rights.
• Took Away: The Sacklers’ shield from liability in opioid lawsuits.

5) Overreach or Proper Role?
The Court acted within its role, enforcing statutory limits. Critics argue it disrupts practical settlements in complex cases; supporters say it upholds fairness and accountability.

6) Plain-English Impact Today
Bankruptcy courts can’t force victims to give up their claims against non-debtors like the Sacklers. People must consent before their rights against third parties are extinguished.

• Bankruptcy
• Liability
• Opioid Crisis
• Third-Party Releases