Introduction
Supreme Court docket No. 23-124 is Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the case over Purdue's Chapter 11 plan and the releases that shielded members of the Sackler family from certain claims.
People searching for the "23-124 docket" usually want three things: the case's identity and status, the filings and opinions in the Supreme Court record, and how that record fits into the wider Purdue bankruptcy.
This guide covers all three. It also separates docket 23-124 from look-alikes: the related stay application, lower-court proceedings, claims-administration records, and later settlement developments.
Key Takeaways
- Docket 23-124 is the Supreme Court merits case, decided June 27, 2024, by a 5–4 vote.
- The Court held that a Chapter 11 plan cannot impose nonconsensual releases of claims against non-debtors.
- Stay application 23A87 and the SDNY bankruptcy case are separate records.
- The Supreme Court docket shows no individual claim status or payment amount.
What is Supreme Court docket 23-124?
The full caption is William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. The Supreme Court docketed it August 10, 2023.
In plain terms, the dispute asked whether a Chapter 11 plan can extinguish claims against non-debtor third parties, chiefly the Sacklers, without the consent of every affected claimant.
What you will find on the docket
The official Supreme Court docket is chronological and links to each document:
- Petition for certiorari, filed July 28, 2023
- Merits briefs from the U.S. Trustee (filed September 20, 2023), the Purdue debtors, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, and the Sackler respondents
- Amicus briefs, including those from law professors on both sides
- Argument transcript and audio from December 4, 2023
- The June 27, 2024 opinion and the judgment
What it is not
Three records are easy to confuse with 23-124:
- 23A87: the related stay application, not a separate merits case. The Court granted it August 10, 2023.
- Case No. 19-23649: the underlying Chapter 11 case in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Claims-administration sites: the Purdue PI Trust and Kroll, which handle claims and plan documents.
A Supreme Court docket tracks appellate proceedings only. It does not show whether a particular claimant is eligible, what they will be paid, or where their claim stands.
How did Harrington v. Purdue Pharma reach the Supreme Court?
Purdue Pharma and its affiliates filed Chapter 11 in the Southern District of New York in September 2019. The plan that followed offered the Sacklers releases in exchange for large contributions to the estate.
The procedural timeline
- September 2019: Purdue files Chapter 11 (Case No. 19-23649).
- September 17, 2021: Judge Robert Drain confirms the Eleventh Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan.
- December 16, 2021: District Judge Colleen McMahon vacates confirmation, holding the Code did not authorize the nonconsensual third-party releases.
- May 30, 2023: The Second Circuit reverses that ruling and remands.
- August 10, 2023: The Supreme Court grants certiorari and the stay application.
- December 4, 2023: Oral argument.
- June 27, 2024: Decision.
The Sackler money changed over time. The Supreme Court's account describes a proposal to return about $4.3 billion to the estate. The Second Circuit described a later agreement of $5.5 to $6.0 billion in total. Those are snapshots from different points in the negotiations, not competing final figures.
Why so many people were watching
The case drew opioid victims, state and local governments, the U.S. Trustee, Purdue, the Sacklers, and bankruptcy professionals. Scholars of mass-tort restructuring watched too. The ruling would shape how future mass-tort bankruptcies handle claims against parties who never filed.
The Supreme Court appeal is separate from later mediation, amended plans, and settlement talks. Those belong to the bankruptcy case, covered below.
What legal question did docket 23-124 present?
The question presented was whether the Bankruptcy Code permits a Chapter 11 plan to release and enjoin, without the affected claimants' consent, claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties.
Key terms
- Debtor: the person or entity whose bankruptcy case has commenced (11 U.S.C. § 101).
- Non-debtor: a party, such as a Sackler family member, that has not filed for bankruptcy.
- Third-party release: a plan provision releasing claims that creditors hold against someone other than the debtor.
- Consensual vs. nonconsensual release: whether affected claimants agreed or the release was imposed on them.
- Permanent injunction: a post-confirmation bar on specified claims.
- Automatic stay: the pause on collection actions that takes effect when a bankruptcy petition is filed (§ 362). It is distinct from the plan's permanent injunction.
The competing positions
These are party arguments, not holdings.
The U.S. Trustee argued that §§ 105(a) and 1123(b)(6) do not authorize nonconsensual third-party releases, and that a general equitable provision cannot override the Code's debtor-specific discharge rules.
Purdue and the creditors' committee argued that appropriate releases were tied to the debtor-creditor relationship, were necessary to the negotiated reorganization, and that losing them threatened creditor recoveries. Law professors filed amicus briefs on both sides.
That left a real practical tension. Collective resolution can deliver compensation and abatement funding faster, yet claimants could lose direct claims against third parties without consenting or getting a conventional trial on those claims.
What did the Supreme Court decide in docket 23-124?
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), was decided June 27, 2024. By a 5–4 vote, Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Kavanaugh dissented.
The holding: the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a Chapter 11 plan release and injunction that discharges, without consent, claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and remanded.
Limits of the ruling
- It does not call consensual releases into question.
- The Court expressed no view on what qualifies as consent.
- It did not decide a plan that provides for full satisfaction of claims against third parties.
The ruling struck the Sackler releases in that plan, but it did not decide any individual claimant's rights or payment. Those questions returned to the bankruptcy process.
Lower-court treatment
Two Delaware bankruptcy rulings show how courts are applying Purdue:
- In re Smallhold, Inc. (October 2024): failure to opt out did not by itself establish consent; affirmative consent was required for the release at issue.
- In re Parlement Technologies, Inc. (July 2024): Purdue did not categorically bar a temporary preliminary injunction, but the movant could not base likelihood of success on a future nonconsensual release.
These are lower-court rulings, not definitions adopted by the Supreme Court.
What happened to Purdue afterward
None of this is part of the 23-124 merits docket:
- January 2025: a settlement in principle of about $7.4 billion, subject to court approval.
- March 18, 2025: Purdue filed a new plan.
- November 18, 2025: the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Eighteenth Amended Joint Plan, under which the Sacklers pay up to $7 billion over 15 years.
- May 1, 2026: the plan took effect. Purdue Pharma ceased to exist, and its businesses moved to Knoa Pharma.
Confirmation appeals were consolidated in the Southern District of New York in April 2026. Recent filings show appellate activity rather than a final resolution.
How can professionals research and monitor the 23-124 docket?
A repeatable workflow keeps the Supreme Court record, the bankruptcy record, and secondary commentary from blurring together.
- Start with the official docket. Download the petition, orders, briefs, opinion, and judgment from the Supreme Court's 23-124 page.
- Separate emergency from merits filings. Treat 23A87 as the stay application and the merits briefs as the substantive record.
- Cross-reference the lower courts. Check the SDNY bankruptcy docket (No. 19-23649), the district court ruling, and the Second Circuit opinion.
- Log every development. Record the date and source of each entry, and flag superseded filings.
- Confirm disposition and later activity. The Supreme Court case is closed; plan confirmation and appeals continue elsewhere.
Useful search terms include:
- Harrington v. Purdue Pharma
- Purdue Pharma L.P. bankruptcy
- Sackler releases
- Nonconsensual third-party releases
- SDNY bankruptcy docket
Where BankruptcyData fits
For teams tracking restructurings at scale, BankruptcyData combines court data, docket activity, stakeholder positions, and historical outcomes in one research platform. It offers customizable notifications, plus enterprise data delivery and licensing for organizations that need large-scale bankruptcy information. Contact sales@bankruptcydata.com for platform or data-access details.
A note on source quality
Prioritize official court records. Label law-firm alerts, academic analysis, and news reports as secondary sources, and verify any operative order against the official docket.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is the Purdue Pharma settlement for individuals?
It depends on the governing plan, claimant category, eligibility, and approved procedures. The Purdue PI Trust reported initial awards of $16,294 (Non-NAS Tier 1), $8,147 (Non-NAS Tier 2), and $25,653 (NAS PI) as of September 30, 2026, before attorneys' fees and liens.
How do I check the status of my Purdue Pharma claim?
Use the Purdue Personal Injury Trust or the Kroll Purdue case site. Supreme Court docket 23-124 contains no individual claim information.
What is the current status of the Purdue Pharma case?
The Supreme Court merits proceeding is complete. The confirmed plan took effect May 1, 2026, while confirmation appeals and claims administration continue. Check the SDNY and Second Circuit dockets for the latest.
Who got the money from the Purdue Pharma settlement?
The plan channels funds to creditor trusts that fund abatement or pay creditors, plus a Personal Injury Trust. Recipients include eligible individual claimants, states, local governments, and abatement programs. Exact classes are in the plan documents on Kroll.
Is Purdue Pharma shutting down?
Purdue ceased to exist on the plan's May 1, 2026 effective date, but its businesses transferred to Knoa Pharma, a public benefit corporation. That is a restructuring, not a simple closure.
Who owns OxyContin now?
Knoa Pharma now operates and distributes medicines formerly handled by Purdue, and a court-appointed monitor's report lists OxyContin among them. Title to the OxyContin trademark or patents is not readily available in public materials, so check the plan documents.
