Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Following what the Supreme Court is actually doing can be daunting. Reporting on the subject is often only done within the context of political narratives of the day -- and following the Court's decisions and reading every new case can be a non-starter. The purpose of this Podcast is to make it as easy as possible for members of the public to source information about what is happening at the Supreme Court. For that reason, we read every Opinion Syllabus without any commentary whatsoever. Further, there are no advertisements or sponsors. We call it "information sourcing," and we hope that the podcast is a useful resource for members of the public who want to understand the legal issues of the day, prospective law students who want to get to know legal language and understand good legal writing, and attorneys who can use the podcast to be better advocates for their clients.
*Note this podcast is for informational and educational purposes only.
Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma (Bankruptcy)
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty in 2007 to a federal felony based on its role in misbranding Oxycontin -- which was far more addictive than the company had made it out to be. Purdue faced seemingly endless lawsuits in the following years based on how addictive the opioid Oxycontin was. For over a decade that followed, the Sackler family, who owned Purdue, began to pull money out of the company -- they eventually pulled $11 billion out of the company -- 75% of the company's assets. In 2019 the company filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As part of the plan approved by the Bankruptcy Court, the Sackler family would contribute $4.2 billion towards settling all opioid related lawsuits, and the Bankruptcy Court would enjoin future claims against the family. The District Court threw out the plan on review. The Second Circuit, in a divided panel, reversed, upholding the third-party releases. The Court reversed, deciding that the Bankruptcy Code's "catch-all" provision, is not so broad so as to allow a discharge of third-party claims against a third-party debtor.
