Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P..
The Supreme Court ruled on the legality of a bankruptcy reorganization plan involving Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family. The Court found that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that discharges claims against nondebtors without claimant consent. The decision reversed the Second Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P..
The Court held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
The Court's decision involves interpreting and applying the bankruptcy code, determining the legality of the Sackler discharge under existing law.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Our only proper task is to interpret and apply the law; and nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
The case centers on whether the bankruptcy code allows for a discharge of claims against nondebtors without claimant consent, which pertains to the scope of judicial remedies.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
The decision addresses the rights of claimants to consent to the discharge of claims, implicating procedural fairness.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The code generally reserves discharge for a debtor who places substantially all of their assets on the table.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. that support the summary and concepts above.
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.
The Sacklers have not fled for bankruptcy, nor have they placed virtually all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors.
Nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.
