The Bankruptcy Off-Ramp from Complex Civil Litigation: Purdue Pharma, Opioids, and Unorthodox Civil Procedure in Public Harms Cases

For civil procedure scholars, bankruptcy has become exciting. Last year, the United States Supreme Court decided for the first time a case that implicated both the core of the national opioids litigation and one of the most important developments in modern civil procedure—namely, the enormous amount of unorthodox procedural innovation that is happening in the courts as parties strive to reach global settlement. The decision, Harrington v. Purdue L.P., took almost seven months despite the grant of expedited review—an indication that the result was likely not easily reached. In June 2024, the Court, voting five to four, reversed the Second Circuit and rejected the approximately $10 billion Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement on the ground that it depended on a $6 billion contribution from the company’s former family owners—the Sacklers—in exchange for releasing the Sacklers from all civil liability or future litigation over the crisis.

In other words, the Sacklers tried to use bankruptcy as an off-ramp to any civil litigation, present or future, in the process enhancing the deal for Purdue and the plaintiffs with funding.