In the mid-1990s, D began marketing OxyContin an opioid. Doctors had traditionally reserved opioid use for cancer patients and those “with chronic diseases” because it was highly addictive. D claimed OxyContin had a novel “time-release” formula that greatly diminished the threat of addiction. D marketed OxyContin for use in “‘a much broader range’” of applications, including as a “‘first-line therapy for the treatment of arthritis.’” D was a “‘family company,’” owned and controlled by the Sacklers. Members of the Sackler family served as president and chief executive officer; they dominated the board of directors; and they “were heavily involved” in the firm’s marketing strategies. Their goal was to maximize OxyContin sales. OxyContin became “‘the most prescribed brand-name narcotic medication’” in the United States. “D generated approximately $34 billion in revenue . . ., most of which came from OxyContin sales.” The Sacklers had an estimated net worth of $14 billion. In 2007, a D affiliate pleaded guilty to a federal felony for misbranding OxyContin as “‘less addictive’” and “‘less subject to abuse . . . than other pain medications.’” Thousands of civil lawsuits followed. The Sacklers began a “‘milking’ program,” by taking as much as 70% of the company’s revenue each year. Ibid. Between 2008 and 2016, the family’s distributions totaled approximately $11 billion, draining D’s total assets by 75% and leaving it in “a significantly weakened financial” state. The Sacklers diverted much of that money to overseas trusts and family-owned companies. In 2019, D filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Sackler family proposed to return to D’s bankruptcy estate $4.325 billion of the $11 billion they had withdrawn from the company in recent years. The payments were to be spread out over a decade. In return, they wanted to extinguish any claims the estate might have against family members, including for fraudulently transferring funds from D in the years preceding its bankruptcy. The Sacklers also wanted to end the growing number of lawsuits against them brought by opioid victims. The Sackler discharge was to be a release and an injunction. The release sought to void not just current opioid-related claims against the family, but future ones as well. It sought to ban not just claims by creditors participating in the bankruptcy proceeding, but claims by anyone who might otherwise sue D. It sought to extinguish not only claims for negligence but also claims for fraud and willful misconduct. The discharge proposed to end all these lawsuits without the consent of the opioid victims who brought them. The Sacklers sought an injunction “forever stay[ing], restrain[ing,] and enjoin[ing]” claims against them. D agreed. D proposed to reorganize as a “public benefit” company dedicated primarily to opioid education and abatement efforts. D offered, with help from the Sacklers’ anticipated contribution, to provide payments from a base amount of $3,500 up to a ceiling of $48,000 (for the most dire cases, and all before deductions for attorney’s fees and other expenses). For those receiving more than the base amount, payments would come in installments spread over as many as 10 years. Fewer than 20% of eligible creditors participated. Thousands of opioid victims voted against the plan too, and many pleaded with the bankruptcy court not to wipe out their claims against the Sacklers without their consent. The bankruptcy court entered an order confirming the plan, including its provisions related to the Sackler discharge. The district court vacated that decision. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the district court and revived the bankruptcy court’s order approving the estate’s (now modified) reorganization plan. P filed an application with this Court.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.