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..
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the Supreme Court addressed whether the bankruptcy code allows for the discharge of claims against nondebtors without the consent of affected claimants. The case arose from Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, where the Sackler family sought immunity from opioid-related claims in exchange for a financial settlement. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision, holding that such nonconsensual releases are not authorized by the bankruptcy code.
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 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 Due Process is relevant to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
The case involves the interpretation and application of bankruptcy law, which implicates procedural due process rights related to the discharge of claims without consent.
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 Separation of Powers is relevant to Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
The decision emphasizes the role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the law, rather than making policy decisions, which is a reflection of the separation of powers.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Our only proper task is to interpret and apply the law; and nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge.
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.
When faced with a catchall phrase like paragraph (6), courts do not necessarily afford it the broadest possible construction it can bear.
Today's decision is a narrow one. Nothing in the opinion should be construed to call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan.