Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

P R E L I M I N A R Y P R I N T
Volume 603 U. S. Part 1
Pages 204–278
OFFICIAL REPORTS
OF
T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T
June 27, 2024
REBECCA A. WOMELDORF
reporter of decisions
Page Proof Pending Publication
N O T I C E : This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before
the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter
of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543,
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.

204 OCTOBER
TERM, 2023
Syllabus
HARRINGTON, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, REGION
2
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P. et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the second circuit
No. 23–124. Argued December 4, 2023—Decided June 27, 2024
Between 1999 and 2019, approximately 247,000 people in the United States
died from prescription-opioid overdoses. Respondent Purdue Pharma
sits at the center of that crisis. Owned and controlled by the Sackler
family, Purdue began marketing OxyContin, an opioid prescription pain
reliever, in the mid-1990s. After Purdue earned billions of dollars in
sales on the drug, in 2007 one of its affliates pleaded guilty to a federal
felony for misbranding OxyContin as a less-addictive, less-abusable al-
ternative to other pain medications. Thousands of lawsuits followed.
Fearful that the litigation would eventually impact them directly, the
Sacklers initiated a “milking program,” withdrawing from Purdue ap-
proximately $11 billion—roughly 75% of the frm's total assets—over
the next decade.
Those withdrawals left Purdue in a signifcantly weakened fnancial
state. And in 2019, Purdue fled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During
that process, the Sacklers proposed to return approximately $4.3 billion
to Purdue's bankruptcy estate. In exchange, the Sacklers sought a ju-
dicial order releasing the family from all opioid-related claims and en-
joining victims from bringing such claims against them in the future.
The bankruptcy court approved Purdue's proposed reorganization plan,
including its provisions concerning the Sackler discharge. But the dis-
trict court vacated that decision, holding that nothing in the law author-
izes bankruptcy courts to extinguish claims against third parties like
the Sacklers, without the claimants' consent. A divided panel of the
Second Circuit reversed the district court and revived the bankruptcy
court's order approving a modifed reorganization plan.
Held: 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. Pp. 214–227.
(a) When a debtor fles for bankruptcy, it “creates an estate” that
includes virtually all the debtor's assets. 11 U. S. C. § 541(a). Under
Chapter 11, the debtor must develop a reorganization plan governing
the distribution of the estate's assets and present it to the bankruptcy
court for approval. §§ 1121, 1123, 1129, 1141. A bankruptcy court's
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
205
Syllabus
order confrming a reorganization plan “discharges the debtor” of cer-
t
ain pre-petition debts. § 1141(d)(1)(A). In this case, the Sacklers
have not fled for bankruptcy or placed all their assets on the table for
distribution to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a
discharge. No provision of the code authorizes that kind of relief.
Pp. 214–224.
(1) Section 1123(b) addresses the kinds of provisions that may be
included in a Chapter 11 plan. That section contains fve specifc para-
graphs, followed by a catchall provision. The frst fve paragraphs all
concern the debtor's rights and responsibilities, as well as its relation-
ship with its creditors. The catchall provides that a plan “may” also
“include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the appli-
cable provisions of this title.” All agree that the frst fve paragraphs
do not authorize the Sackler discharge. But, according to the plan pro-
ponents and the Second Circuit, paragraph (6) broadly permits any term
not expressly forbidden by the code so long as a judge deems it “appro-
priate.” Because provisions like the Sackler discharge are not ex-
pressly prohibited, they reason, paragraph (6) necessarily permits them.
That is not correct. When faced with a catchall phrase like paragraph
(6), courts do not necessarily afford it the broadest possible construction
it can bear. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. 497, 512. Instead,
we generally appreciate that the catchall must be interpreted in light of
its surrounding context and read to “embrace only objects similar in
nature” to the specifc examples preceding it. Ibid. Here, each of the
preceding paragraphs concerns the rights and responsibilities of the
debtor; and they authorize a bankruptcy court to adjust claims without
consent only to the extent such claims concern the debtor. While para-
graph (6) doubtlessly confers additional authorities on a bankruptcy
court, it cannot be read under the canon of ejusdem generis to endow a
bankruptcy court with the “radically different” power to discharge the
debts of a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Epic
Systems Corp., 584 U. S., at 513. And while the dissent reaches a con-
trary conclusion, it does so only by elevating its view of the bankruptcy
code's purported purpose over the text's clear focus on the debtor.
Pp. 215–221.
(2) The code's statutory scheme further forecloses the Sackler dis-
charge. The code generally reserves discharge for a debtor who places
substantially all of their assets on the table. § 1141(d)(1)(A); see also
§ 541(a). And, ordinarily, it does not include claims based on “fraud” or
those alleging “willful and malicious injury.” §§ 523(a)(2), (4), (6). The
Sackler discharge defes these limitations. The Sacklers have not fled
for bankruptcy, nor have they placed virtually all their assets on the
table for distribution to creditors. Yet, they seek an order discharging

Page Proof Pending Publication
206 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Syllabus
a broad sweep of present and future claims against them, including ones
for
fraud and willful injury. In all of these ways, the Sacklers seek to
pay less than the code ordinarily requires and receive more than it nor-
mally permits. Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, plan proponents
cannot evade these limitations simply by rebranding their discharge a
“release.” Pp. 221–223.
(3) History offers a fnal strike against the plan proponents' con-
struction of § 1123(b)(6). Pre-code practice, we have said, may some-
times inform the meaning of the code's more “ambiguous” provisions.
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U. S. 639,
649. And every bankruptcy law cited by the parties and their amici—
from 1800 until the enactment of the present bankruptcy code in 1978—
generally reserved the benefts of discharge to the debtor who offered
a “fair and full surrender of [its] property.” Sturges v. Crowninshield,
4 Wheat. 122, 176. Had Congress meant to reshape traditional practice
so profoundly in the present bankruptcy code, extending to courts the
capacious new power the plan proponents claim, one might have ex-
pected it to say so expressly “somewhere in the [c]ode itself.” Dewsnup
v. Timm, 502 U. S. 410, 420. Pp. 223–224.
(b) In the end, the plan proponents default to policy. The Sacklers,
they say, will not return any funds to Purdue's estate unless the bank-
ruptcy court grants them the sweeping nonconsensual release and in-
junction they seek. Without the Sackler discharge, they predict, vic-
tims will be left without any means of recovery. But the U. S. Trustee
disagrees. As he tells it, the potentially massive liability the Sacklers
face may induce them to negotiate for consensual releases on terms
more favorable to all the claimants. In addition, the Trustee warns, a
ruling for the Sacklers would provide a roadmap for tortfeasors to mis-
use the bankruptcy system in future cases. While both sides may have
their points, this Court is the wrong audience for such policy disputes.
Our only proper task is to interpret and apply the law; and nothing in
present law authorizes the Sackler discharge. Pp. 224–226.
(c) 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. Nor does the Court
express a view on what qualifes as a consensual release or pass upon a
plan that provides for the full satisfaction of claims against a third-
party nondebtor. Additionally, because this case involves only a stayed
reorganization plan, the Court does not address whether its reading of
the bankruptcy code would justify unwinding reorganization plans that
have already become effective and been substantially consummated.
Confning ourselves to the question presented, the Court holds only that
the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
207
Syllabus
part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to
discharge
claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected
claimants. Because the Second Circuit held otherwise, its judgment is
reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. Pp. 226–227.
69 F. 4th 45, reversed and remanded.
Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas,
Alito, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., fled a dis-
senting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ.,
joined, post, p. 227.
Deputy Solicitor General Gannon argued the cause for
petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General
Prelogar, Pr incipal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Boynton, Masha G. Hansford, Michael S. Raab, Lawrence
H. Fogelman, Benjamin H. Torrance, Ramona D. Elliott,
Nan Roberts Eitel, P. Matthew Sutko, Beth A. Levene, and
Sumi K. Sakata. J. Carl Cecere fled briefs for respondents
City of Grande Prairie et al. supporting petitioner. Michael
S. Quinn fled a brief for respondent Ellen Isaacs support-
ing petitioner.
Gregory G. Garre argued the cause for respondents Pur-
due Pharma L. P. et al. With him on the brief for Debtor
respondents were Charles S. Dameron, Eric J. Konopka,
Blake E. Stafford, Marshall S. Huebner, Benjamin S. Kami-
netzky, Marc J. Tobak, Marc L. Kesselman, and Roxana
Aleali. J. Christopher Shore, Michele J. Meises, and Ed-
ward E. Neiger fled a brief for respondents Ad Hoc Group
of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma, L. P., et al. Paul
D. Clement, C. Harker Rhodes IV, and Maura Kathleen Mo-
n aghan filed a br ief for Mor timer-Side Initia l Covered
Sackler respondents. Pratik A. Shah argued the cause for
respondents Offcial Committee of Unsecured Creditors of
Purdue Pharma L. P. et al. With him on the brief were
Z. W. Julius Chen, Lide E. Paterno, Mitchell P. Hurley, and
Erik Y. Preis. Roy T. Englert, Jr., Kenneth H. Eckstein,
Rachael Ringer, David E. Blabey, Jr., David J. Molton, Mel-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
208 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Counsel
anie L. Cyganowski, and Jennifer S. Feeney fled a brief for
respondent
Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental and Other
Contingent Litigation Claimants. Kevin C. Maclay and Jef-
frey A. Liesemer fled a brief for respondent Multi-State
Governmental Entities Group.*
*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for Bankruptcy Law
Professors by Jonathan C. Lipson, pro se, and Joshua L. Seifert; for Bank-
ruptcy Law Professors Ralph Brubaker et al. by Andrew K. Glenn; for
NexPoint Advisors, L. P., et al. by Jeffrey A. Lamken and Robert K. Kry;
for “Texas Two-Step” Victims by Deepak Gupta, Gregory A. Beck, Jona-
than Ruckdeschel, and Moshe Maimon; for Martin J. Bienenstock et al. by
Martin J. Bienenstock and Daniel S. Desatnik, both pro se; for Adam J.
Levitin by Daniel R. Wal fsh; for Kim Harold Peterson by Rupa G. Singh;
and for Eugene Wedoff et al. by David R. Kuney.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the Ad Hoc
Group of Local Councils of the Boy Scouts of America by Noel J. Fran-
cisco, C. Kevin Marshall, Richard G. Mason, and R. Craig Martin; for the
Arkansas Opioid Recovery Partnership et al. by Colin R. Jorgensen and
John Wilkerson; for the Boy Scouts of America by Michael R. Huston; for
Certain Former Commissioners of the American Bankruptcy Institute's
Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 by Robert J. Keach and
Albert Togut; for Law Professors by Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Gregg
M. Galardi, Daniel G. Egan, and Andrew G. Devore; for the Recovery
Advocacy Project et al. by Jennifer L. Shel fer; for the U. S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops by Traci L. Lovitt, Corinne Ball, Christopher DiPom-
peo, and Anthony J. Dick; and for Cheryl Juaire et al. by Jamie Billotte
Moses.
Briefs of amici curiae were fled for Aldrich Pump LLC et al. by C.
Kevin Marshall and Gregory M. Gordon; for the American College of
Bankruptcy by Robert M. Loeb, Thomas M. Bondy, Katherine M. Kopp,
Marc A. Levinson, and James L. Stengel; for the Association of the Bar
of the City of New York by Paul H. Zumbro, George E. Zobitz, Benjamin
Gruenstein, Lauren A. Moskowitz, and Melissa A. Syring; for Atlantic
Basin Refning, Inc., by Andrew C. Simpson; for the Chamber of Com-
merce of the United States of America et al. by Robert E. Dunn, Andrew
R. Varcoe, Erica Klenicki, and Michael A. Tilghman II; for the Commeri-
cal Law League of America et al. by Douglas B. Rosner, Peter C. Califano,
Joseph A. Peiffer, Brian L. Davidoff, and Joan N. Feeney; for the Federa-
tion of Sovereign Indigenous Nations by Timothy Cornell; for Highland
Capital Management, L. P., by Jeffrey N. Pomerantz and Jordan A. Kroop;
and for the Insolvency Law Committee of the Business Law Section of
the California Lawyers Association by Leonard L. Gumport.

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
209
Opinion of the Court
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court.
The
bankruptcy code contains hundreds of interlocking
rules about “ `the relations between' ” a “ `debtor and [its]
creditors.' ” Wright v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 304 U. S.
502, 513–514 (1938). But beneath that complexity lies a sim-
ple bargain: A debtor can win a discharge of its debts if it
proceeds with honesty and places virtually all its assets on
the table for its creditors. The debtor in this case, Purdue
Pharma L. P., fled for bankruptcy after facing a wave of
litigation for its role in the opioid epidemic. Purdue's long-
time owners, members of the Sackler family, confronted a
growing number of suits too. But instead of declaring bank-
ruptcy, they chose a different path. From the court over-
seeing Purdue's bankruptcy, they sought and won an order
extinguishing vast numbers of existing and potential claims
against them. They obtained all this without securing the
consent of those affected or placing anything approaching
their total assets on the table for their creditors. The ques-
tion we face is whether the bankruptcy code authorizes a
court to issue an order like that.
I
A
The opioid epidemic represents “one of the largest public
hea lth cr ises i n th is nati on's h istory. ” In re Purdue
Pharma L. P., 69 F. 4th 45, 56 (CA2 2023). Between 1999
and 2019, approximately 247,000 people in the United States
died from prescription-opioid overdoses. In re Purdue
Pharma L. P., 635 B. R. 26, 44 (SDNY 2021). The U. S. De-
partment of Health and Human Services estimates that the
opioid epidemic has cost the country between $53 and $72
billion annually. Ibid.
Purdue sits at the center of these events. In the mid-
1990s, it began marketing OxyContin, an opioid prescription
pain reliever. 69 F. 4th, at 56. Because of the addictive
quality of opioids, doctors had traditionally reserved their
use for cancer patients and those “with chronic diseases.”

210 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
635 B. R., at 42. But OxyContin, Purdue claimed, had a
novel
“time-release” formula that greatly diminished the
threat of addiction. Ibid. On that basis, Purdue marketed
OxyContin for use in “ `a much broader range' ” of applica-
tions, including as a “ `frst-line therapy for the treatment of
arthritis.' ” Ibid.
Purdue was a “ `family company,' ” owned and controlled
by the Sacklers. Id., at 40. Members of the Sackler family
served as president and chief executive offcer; they domi-
nated the board of directors; and they “were heavily in-
volved” in the frm's marketing strategies. 69 F. 4th, at 86
(Wesley, J., concurring in judgment). They “pushed sales
targets,” too, and “accompanied sales representatives on
`ride along ' visits to health care providers” in an effort to
maximize OxyContin sales. 635 B. R., at 50.
Quickly, OxyContin became “ `the most prescribed brand-
name narcotic medication' ” in the United States. Id., at 43.
Between 1996 and 2019, “Purdue generated approximately
$34 billion in revenue . . . , most of which came from OxyCon-
tin sales.” Id., at 39. The company's success propelled the
Sacklers onto lists “of the top twenty wealthiest families in
America,” with an estimated net worth of $14 billion. Id.,
at 40.
Eventually, however, the frm came under scrutiny. In
2007, a Purdue affliate pleaded guilty to a federal felony for
misbranding OxyContin as “ `less addictive' ” and “ `less sub-
ject to abuse . . . than other pain medications.' ” Id., at 48.
Thousands of civil lawsuits followed as individuals, families,
and governments within and outside the United States
sought damages from Purdue and the Sacklers for injuries
allegedly caused by their deceptive marketing practices. 69
F. 4th, at 60.
Appreciating this litigation “would eventually impact them
directly,” id., at 59, the Sacklers began what one family mem-
ber described as a “ `milking ' program,” 635 B. R., at 57. In
the years before the 2007 plea agreement, Purdue's distribu-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
211
Opinion of the Court
tions to the Sacklers represented less than 15% of its annual
re
venue. Ibid. After the plea agreement, the Sacklers
began taking as much as 70% of the company's revenue each
year. Ibid. Between 2008 and 2016, the family's distribu-
tions totaled approximately $11 billion, draining Purdue's
total assets by 75% and leaving it in “a signifcantly weak-
ened fnancial” state. 69 F. 4th, at 59. The Sacklers di-
verted much of that money to overseas trusts and family-
owned companies. 635 B. R., at 71.
B
In 2019, Purdue fled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Mem-
bers of the Sackler fami ly saw i n that development an
opportunity “to get [their own] goals accomplished.” In re
Purdue Pharma L. P., No. 19–23649 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY, Aug.
18, 2021), ECF Doc. 3599, p. 35 (testimony of David Sackler).
They proposed to return to Purdue's bankruptcy estate
$4.325 billion of the $11 billion they had withdrawn from the
company in recent years. 69 F. 4th, at 61. But they offered
to do so only through payments spread out over a decade.
Id., at 60. And, in return, they sought the estate's agree-
ment on, and a judicial order addressing, two matters.
First, the Sacklers wanted to extinguish any claims the es-
tate might have against family members, including for fraud-
ulently transferring funds from Purdue in the years preced-
ing its bankruptcy. In re Purdue Pharma L. P., 633 B. R.
53, 83–84 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 2021). Second, the Sacklers
wanted to end the growing number of lawsuits against them
brought by opioid victims (the Sackler discharge). Ibid.
The Sackler discharge they proposed comprised a release
and an injunction. The release sought to void not just cur-
rent opioid-related claims against the family, but future ones
as well. It sought to ban not just claims by creditors partici-
pating in the bankruptcy proceeding, but claims by anyone
who might otherwise sue Purdue. It sought to extinguish
not only claims for negligence, but also claims for fraud and
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
212 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
willful misconduct. 1 App. 193. And it proposed to end all
these
lawsuits without the consent of the opioid victims who
brought them. To enforce this release, the Sacklers sought
an injunction “forever stay[ing], restrain[ing,] and enjoin-
[ing]” claims against them. Id., at 279. That injunction
would not just prevent suits against the company's offcers
and directors but would run in favor of hundreds, if not thou-
sands, of Sackler family members and entities under their
control. Id., at 117–190.
Purdue agreed to these terms and included them in the
reorganization plan it presented to the bankruptcy court for
approval. In that plan, Purdue further proposed to reorga-
nize as a “public beneft” company dedicated primarily to opi-
oid education and abatement efforts. 633 B. R., at 74. As
for individual victims harmed by the company's products,
Purdue offered, with help from the Sacklers' anticipated con-
tribution, 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).
See 1 App. 557–559, 573–585; 6 App. in No. 22–110 etc. (CA2),
p. 1697. For those receiving more than the base amount,
payments would come in installments spread over as many
as 10 years. 7 id., at 1805, 1812.
Creditors were polled on the proposed plan. Though most
who returned ballots supported it, fewer than 20% of eligible
creditors participated. 21 id., at 6253, 6258. 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. 635 B. R., at
35. “Our system of justice,” they wrote, “demands that the
allegations against the Sackler family be fully and fairly liti-
gated in a public and open trial, that they be judged by an
impartial jury, and that they be held accountable to those
they have harmed.” In re Purdue Pharma L. P., No. 7:21–
cv–07532 (SDNY, Oct. 25, 2021), ECF Doc. 94, p. 21 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The U. S. Trustee, charged with
promoting the integrity of the bankruptcy system for all

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
213
Opinion of the Court
stakeholders, joined in these objections. So did eight States,
the
District of Columbia, the city of Seattle, and various Ca-
nadian municipalities and Tribes, each of which sought to
pursue its own claims against the Sacklers. 635 B. R., at 35.
C
The bankruptcy court rejected the objectors' arguments
and entered an order confrming the plan, including its provi-
sions related to the Sackler discharge. 633 B. R., at 95–115.
Soon, however, the district court vacated that decision.
Nothing in the law, that court held, authorized the bank-
ruptcy court to extinguish claims against the Sacklers with-
out the consent of the opioid victims who brought them. 635
B. R., at 115.
After that setback, plan proponents, including Purdue,
members of the Sackler family, and various creditors, ap-
pealed to the Second Circuit. While their appeal was pend-
ing, they also foated a new proposal. Now, they said, the
Sacklers were willing to contribute an additional $1.175 to
$1.675 billion to Purdue's estate if the eight objecting States
and the District of Columbia would withdraw their objec-
tions to the frm's reorganization plan. 69 F. 4th, at 67.
The Sacklers' proposed contribution still fell well short of the
$11 billion they received from the company between 2008
and 2016. Nor did it begin to refect the earnings the
Sacklers have enjoyed from that sum over time. And the
proposed contr ibuti on wou ld still come in inst a l lments
spread over many years. But the new proposal was enough
to persuade the States and the District of Columbia to drop
their objections to the plan, even as a number of individual
victims, the Canadian creditors, and the U. S. Trustee per-
sisted in theirs.
Ultimately, a divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed
the district court and revived the bankruptcy court's order
approving the estate's (now-modifed) reorganization plan.
Wr iting separately, Judge Wesley acknowledged that a
bankruptcy court enjoys broad authority to modify debtor-
Page Proof Pending Publication

214 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
creditor relations. But, he argued, nothing in the bank-
r
uptcy code grants a bankruptcy court the “extraordinary”
power to release and enjoin claims against a third party
without the consent of the affected claimants. Id., at 89
(opinion concurring in judgment). The majority's contrary
view, he added, “pin[ned the Second] Circuit frmly on one
side of a weighty issue that, for too long, has split the courts
of appeals.” Id., at 90.
After the Second Circuit ruled, the U. S. Trustee fled an
application with this Court to stay its decision. We granted
the application and, treating it as a petition for a writ of
certiorari, agreed to take this case to resolve the circuit split
Judge Wesley highlighted. 600 U. S. ––– (2023).
1
II
The plan proponents and U. S. Trustee agree on certain
foundational points. When a debtor fles for bankruptcy, it
“creates an estate” that includes virtually all the debtor's
assets. 11 U. S. C. § 541(a). Under Chapter 11, the debtor
can work with its creditors to develop a reorganization plan
governing the distribution of the estate's assets; it must then
present that plan to the bankruptcy court and win its ap-
proval. §§ 1121, 1123, 1129, 1141. Once the bankruptcy
court issues an order confrming the plan, that document
binds the debtor and its creditors going forward—even those
who did not assent to the plan. § 1141(a).
Most relevant here, a bankruptcy court's order confrming
a plan “discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before
the date of such confrmation,” except as provided in the
plan, the confrmation order, or the code. § 1141(d)(1)(A).
1
For examples of decisions on both sides of the split, compare In re
Pacifc Lumber Co., 584 F. 3d 229 (CA5 2009); In re Lowenschuss, 67 F. 3d
1394 (CA9 1995); In re Western Real Estate Fund, Inc., 922 F. 2d 592
(CA10 1990), with In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC, 945 F. 3d 126
(CA3 2019); In re Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc., 780 F. 3d 1070
(CA11 2015); In re Airadigm Communications, Inc., 519 F. 3d 640 (CA7
2008); In re Dow Corning Corp., 280 F. 3d 648 (CA6 2002); In re A. H.
Robins Co., 880 F. 2d 694 (CA4 1989).
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
215
Opinion of the Court
That discharge not only releases or “void[s] any past or fu-
ture
judgments on the” discharged debt; it also “operat[es]
as an injunction . . . prohibit[ing] creditors from attempting
to collect or to recover the debt.” Tennessee Student As-
sistance Corporation v. Hood, 541 U. S. 440, 447 (2004) (citing
§§ 524(a)(1), (2)). Generally, however, a discharge operates
only for the beneft of the debtor against its creditors and
“does not affect the liability of any other entity.” § 524(e).
The Sacklers have not fled for bankruptcy and have not
placed virtually all their assets on the table for distribution
to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a dis-
charge. They hope to win a judicial order releasing pending
claims against them brought by opioid victims. They seek
an injunction “permanently and forever” foreclosing similar
suits in the future. 1 App. 279. And they seek all this
without the consent of those affected. The question we face
thus boils down to whether a court in bankruptcy may effec-
tively extend to nondebtors the benefts of a Chapter 11 dis-
charge usually reserved for debtors.
A
For an answer, we turn to § 1123. It addresses the “[c]on-
tents”—or terms—of the bankruptcy reorganization plan a
debtor presents and a court approves in Chapter 11 proceed-
ings. Some plan terms are mandatory, § 1123(a); others are
optional, § 1123(b). No one suggests that anything like the
Sackler discharge must be included in a debtor's reorganiza-
tion plan. Instead, plan proponents contend, it is a provision
a debtor may include and a court may approve in a reorgani-
zation plan.
Section 1123(b) governs that question. It directs that a
plan “may”:
“(1) impair or leave unimpaired any class of claims,
secured or unsecured, or of interests;
“(2) . . . provide for the assumption, rejection, or as-
signment of any executory contract or unexpired lease
of the debtor not previously rejected under [§ 365];
Page Proof Pending Publication

216 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
“(3) provide for—
“(A)
the settlement or adjustment of any claim or in-
terest belonging to the debtor or to the estate; or
“(B) the retention and enforcement by the debtor, by
the trustee, or by a representative of the estate ap-
pointed for such purpose, of any such claim or interest;
“(4) provide for the sale of all or substantially all of
the property of the estate, and the distribution of the
proceeds of such sa le among holders of clai ms or
interests;
“(5) modify the rights of holders of secured claims,
other than a claim secured only by a security interest in
real property that is the debtor's principal residence, or
of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the
rights of holders of any class of claims; and
“(6) include any other appropriate provision not in-
consistent with the applicable provisions of this title.”
We can easily rule out the frst fve of these paragraphs as
potential sources of legal authority for the Sackler discharge.
They permit a plan to address claims and property belonging
to a debtor or its estate. §§ 1123(b)(2), (3), (4). They per-
mit a plan to modify the rights of creditors who hold claims
against the debtor or its estate. §§ 1123(b)(1), (5). But
nothing in those paragraphs authorizes a plan to extinguish
claims against third parties, like the Sacklers, without the
consent of the affected claimants, like the opioid victims. If
authority for the Sackler discharge can be found anywhere,
it must be found in paragraph (6). That is the paragraph on
which the Second Circuit primarily rested its decision below,
and it is the one on which plan proponents pin their case
here.
2
2
The Sacklers suggest that, if 11 U. S. C. § 1123(b) does not permit a
bankruptcy court to release and enjoin claims against a nondebtor without
the affected claimants' consent, § 105(a) does. See Brief for Mortimer-
Side Initial Covered Respondents 19 (Brief for Sackler Family). That
provision allows a bankruptcy court to “issue any order, process, or judg-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
217
Opinion of the Court
As the plan proponents see it, paragraph (6) allows a
debtor
to include in its plan, and a court to order, any term
not “expressly forbid[den]” by the bankruptcy code as long
as a bankruptcy judge deems it “appropriate” and consistent
with the broad “purpose[s]” of bankruptcy. 69 F. 4th, at 73–
74; post, at 267–268 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And be-
cause the code does not expressly forbid a nonconsensual
nondebtor discharge, the reasoning goes, the bankruptcy
court was free to authorize one here after fnding it an “ap-
propriate” provision. See Brief for Sackler Family 19–21;
Brief for Purdue 20; post, at 240–242.
This understanding of the statute faces an immediate ob-
stacle. Paragraph (6) is a catchall phrase tacked on at the
end of a long and detailed list of specifc directions. When
faced with a catchall phrase like that, courts do not necessar-
ily afford it the broadest possible construction it can bear.
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. 497, 512 (2018). In-
stead, we generally appreciate that the catchall must be in-
terpreted in light of its surrounding context and read to “em-
brace only objects similar in nature” to the specifc examples
preceding it. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). So,
for example, when a statute sets out a list discussing “cars,
trucks, motorcycles, or any other vehicles,” we appreciate
that the catchall phrase may reach similar landbound vehi-
cles (perhaps including buses and camper vans), but it does
not reach dissimilar “vehicles” (such as airplanes and sub-
marines). See McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 26–
ment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of ” the
bankruptcy code. § 105(a). As the Second Circuit recognized, however,
“§ 105(a) alone cannot justify” the imposition of nonconsensual third-party
releases because it serves only to “ `carry out' ” authorities expressly con-
ferred elsewhere in the code. 69 F. 4th 45, 73 (2023) (quoting § 105(a)); see
also 2 R. Levin & H. Sommer, Collier on Bankruptcy ¶105.01[1], p. 105–6
(16th ed. 2023). Purdue concedes this point, Brief for Debtor Respond-
ents 19, n. 5 (Brief for Purdue), as do several other plan proponents, see,
e. g., Brief for Respondent Ad Hoc Committee 29. Necessarily, then, our
focus trains on § 1123(b)(6).
Page Proof Pending Publication

218 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
27 (1931). This ancient interpretive principle, sometimes
ca
lled the ejusdem generis canon, seeks to afford a statute
the scope a reasonable reader would attribute to it.
Viewed with that much in mind, we do not think paragraph
(6) affords a bankruptcy court the authority the plan propo-
nents suppose. In some circumstances, it may be diffcult to
discern what a statute's specifc listed items share in com-
mon. See A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 207–208
(2012). But here an obvious link exists: When Congress au-
thorized “appropriate” plan provisions in paragraph (6), it
did so only after enumerating fve specifc sorts of provisions,
all of which concern the debtor—its rights and responsibil-
ities, and its relationship with its creditors. Doubtless,
paragraph (6) operates to confer additional authorities on a
bankruptcy court. See United States v. Energy Resources
Co., 495 U. S. 545, 549 (1990). But the catchall cannot be
fairly read to endow a bankruptcy court with the “radically
different” power to discharge the debts of a nondebtor with-
out the consent of affected nondebtor claimants. Epic Sys-
tems Corp., 584 U. S., at 513; see also RadLAX Gateway
Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U. S. 639, 645–647
(2012).
The catchall's text underscores the point. Congress could
have said in paragraph (6) that “everything not expressly
prohibited is permitted.” But it didn't. Instead, Congress
set out a detailed list of powers, followed by a catchall that
it qualifed with the term “appropriate.” That quintessen-
tially “context dependent” term often draws its meaning
from surrounding provisions. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U. S.
277, 286 (2011). And we know to look to the statute's pre-
ceding specifc paragraphs as the relevant “context” here
because paragraph (6) tells us so. It permits “any other
appropriate provision”—that is, “other” than the provisions
already discussed in paragraphs (1) through (5). (Emphasis
added.) Each of those “other” paragraphs authorizes a
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
219
Opinion of the Court
bankruptcy court to adjust claims without consent only to
the
extent such claims concern the debtor. From this, it
follows naturally that an “appropriate provision” adopted
pursuant to the catchall that purports to extinguish claims
without consent should be similarly constrained. See, e. g.,
Epic Systems Corp., 584 U. S., at 512–513.
For its part, the dissent does not dispute that the ejusdem
generis canon applies to § 1123(b)(6). Post, at 259–261; see
also Brief for Sackler Family 44; Brief for Purdue 23. But
it disagrees with our application of the canon for two reasons.
First, the dissent claims, it “is factually incorrect” to suggest
that all the provisions of § 1123(b) concern the debtor's rights
and responsibilities. Post, at 260. The dissent points out
that a bankruptcy estate may settle creditors' “derivative
claims” against nondebtors under paragraph (3). Post, at
261. And this “indisputable point,” the dissent declares,
“defeats the Court's conclusion that § 1123(b)'s provisions re-
late only to the debtor and do not allow releases of claims
that victims and creditors hold against non-debtors.” Post,
at 262; see Brief for Purdue 24–25.
But that argument contains a glaring faw. The dissent
neglects why a bankruptcy court may resolve derivative
claims under paragraph (3): It may because those claims be-
long to the debtor's estate. See, e. g., In re Ontos, Inc., 478
F. 3d 427, 433 (CA1 2007). In a derivative action, the named
plaintiff “is only a nominal plaintiff. The substantive claim
belongs to the corporation.” 2 J. Macey, Corporation Laws
§ 13.20[D], p. 13–140 (2020–4 Supp.). And no one questions
that Purdue may address in its own bankruptcy plan claims
“wherever located and by whomever held,” § 541(a)—includ-
ing those claims derivatively asserted by another on its be-
half, see § 1123(b)(3). The problem is, the Sackler discharge
is nothing like that. Rather than seek to resolve claims that
substantively belong to Purdue, it seeks to extinguish claims
against the Sacklers that belong to their victims. And pre-

Page Proof Pending Publication
220 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
cisely nothing in § 1123(b) suggests those claims can be bar-
gai
ned away without the consent of those affected, as if the
claims were somehow Purdue's own property.
3
Having come up short on the text of § 1123(b), the dissent
pivots to the statute's purpose. Post, at 260. As the dis-
sent sees it, our application of the ejusdem generis canon
should focus less on the provisions preceding the catchall and
more on the overall “purpose of bankruptcy law” in solving
“collective-action problem[s].” Post, at 231, 261–262; see
also Brief for Purdue 21. But there is an obvious diffculty
with this approach, too. As this Court has long recognized,
“[n]o statute pursues a single policy at all costs.” Bartenw-
erfer v. Buckley, 598 U. S. 69, 81 (2023). Always, the ques-
tion we face is how far Congress has gone in pursuing one
policy or another. See ibid. So, yes, bankruptcy law may
serve to address some collective-action problems, but no one
(save perhaps the dissent) thinks it provides a bankruptcy
court with a roving commission to resolve all such problems
that happen its way, blind to the role other mechanisms (leg-
islation, class actions, multi-district litigation, consensual
settlements, among others) play in addressing them. And
here, the fve paragraphs that precede the catchall tell us
that bankruptcy courts may have many powers, including
the power to address certain collective-action problems when
they implicate the debtor's rights and responsibilities. But
those directions also indicate that a bankruptcy court's pow-
ers are not limitless and do not endow it with the power to
extinguish without their consent claims held by nondebtors
3
In an effort to blur this distinction, the dissent points out that the
Sackler discharge covers claims for which Purdue's conduct is a “legally
relevant factor.” Post, at 259–260 (quoting 69 F. 4th, at 80). But that does
not alter the fact that the Sackler discharge would extinguish the victims'
claims against the Sacklers. Those claims neither belong to Purdue nor
are they asserted against Purdue or its estate. The dissent disregards
these elemental distinctions. See, e. g., post, at 273 (confating the estate's
power to settle its own fraudulent transfer claims against the Sacklers
with the power to extinguish those of the victims against the Sacklers).

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
221
Opinion of the Court
(here, the opioid victims) against other nondebtors (here,
the
Sacklers).
4
B
When resolving a dispute about a statute's meaning, we
sometimes look for guidance not just in its immediate terms
but in related provisions as well. See, e. g., Turkiye Halk
Bankasi A. S. v. United States, 598 U. S. 264, 275 (2023).
Paragraph (6) itself alludes to this fact by instructing that
any plan term adopted under its auspices must not be “incon-
sistent with the applicable provisions of ” the bankruptcy
code. Following that direction and looking to Chapter 11
more broadly, we fnd at least three further reasons why
§ 1123(b)(6) cannot bear the interpretation the plan propo-
nents and the dissent would have us give it.
First, consider what is and who can earn a discharge. As
we have seen, a discharge releases the debtor from its debts
and enjoins future efforts to collect them—even by those
who do not assent to the debtor 's reorgani zati on plan.
§§ 524(a)(1)–(2), 1129(b)(1), 1141(a). Generally, too, the bank-
ruptcy code reserves this beneft to “the debtor”—the entity
that fles for bankruptcy. § 1141(d)(1)(A); accord, § 524(e);
see also §§ 727(a)–(b). The plan proponents and the dissent's
reading of § 1123(b)(6) would defy these rules by effectively
affording to a nondebtor a discharge usually reserved for the
debtor alone.
Second, notice how the code constrains the debtor. To
win a discharge, again as we have seen, the code generally
requires the debtor to come forward with virtually all its
assets. §§ 541(a)(1), 548. Nor is the discharge a debtor
receives unbounded. It does not reach claims based on
4
The dissent characterizes our analysis of paragraph (6) as “breez[y],”
as if the analysis would be correct if only it were belabored. Post, at 259.
And yet it is the dissent that relegates the text of the relevant statute,
§ 1123( b), to a pair of footnotes bookendi ng a 25-page expositi on on
collective-action problems and public policy, one that precedes any effort
to engage with our statutory analysis. See post, at 232, n. 1, 257, n. 5.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
222 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
“fraud” or those alleging “willful and malicious injury.”
§§
523(a)(2), (4), (6). And it cannot “affect any right to trial
by jury” a creditor may have “with regard to a personal in-
jury or wrongful death tort claim.” 28 U. S. C. § 1411(a).
The plan proponents and the dissent's reading of § 1123(b)(6)
transgresses all these limits too. The Sacklers have not
agreed to place anything approaching their full assets on the
table for opioid victims. Yet they seek a judicial order that
would extinguish virtually all claims against them for fraud,
willful injury, and even wrongful death, all without the con-
sent of those who have brought and seek to bring such
claims. In each of these ways, the Sacklers seek to pay less
than the code ordinarily requires and receive more than it
normally permits.
Finally, there is a notable exception to the code's general
rules. For asbestos-related bankruptcies—and only for such
bankruptcies—Congress has provided that, “[n]otwithstand-
ing ” the usual rule that a debtor's discharge does not affect
the liabilities of others on that same debt, § 524(e), courts
may issue “an injunction . . . bar[ring] any action directed
against a third party” under certain statutorily specifed cir-
cumstances. § 524(g)(4)(A)(ii). That the code does author-
ize courts to enjoin claims against third parties without their
consent, but does so in only one context, makes it all the
more unlikely that § 1123(b)(6) is best read to afford courts
that same authority in every context. See, e. g., Bittner v.
United States, 598 U. S. 85, 94 (2023); AMG Capital Manage-
ment, LLC v. FTC, 593 U. S. 67, 77 (2021).
5
5
The dissent claims that, in making this observation, we defy § 524(g)'s
directive that “[n]othing in [it], or in the amendments made by [its addition
to the bankruptcy code], shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede
any other authority the court has to issue injunctions in connection with
an order confrming a plan of reorganization.” 108 Stat. 4117, note follow-
ing 11 U. S. C. § 524; see post, at 269–270. That charge misunderstands
the point. We do not read § 524(g) to “impair” or “modify” authority pre-
viously available to courts in bankruptcy. To the contrary, we simply un-
derstand § 524(g) to illustrate how Congress might proceed if it intended

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
223
Opinion of the Court
How do the plan proponents and the dissent reply to all
th
is? Essentially, they ask us to look the other way. What-
ever limits the code imposes on debtors and discharges mean
nothing, they say, because the Sacklers seek a “release,” not
a “discharge.” See, e. g., post, at 271–273. But word games
cannot obscure the underlying reality. Once more, the
Sacklers seek greater relief than a bankruptcy discharge nor-
mally affords, for they hope to extinguish even claims for
wrongful death and fraud, and they seek to do so without
putting anything close to all their assets on the table. Nor
is what the Sacklers seek a traditional release, for they hope
to have a court extinguish claims of opioid victims without
their consent. See, e. g., J. Macey, Corporate Governance:
Promises Kept, Promises Broken 152 (2008) (“settlements
are, by defnition, consensual”); accord, Firefghters v. Cleve-
land, 478 U. S. 501, 529 (1986). Describe the relief the
Sacklers seek how you will, nothing in the bankruptcy code
contemplates (much less authorizes) it.
C
If text and context supply two strikes against the plan pro-
ponents and the dissent's construction of § 1123(b)(6), history
offers a third. When Congress enacted the present bank-
ruptcy code in 1978, it did “not write `on a clean slate.' ” Hall
v. United States, 566 U. S. 506, 523 (2012) (quoting Dewsnup
v. Timm, 502 U. S. 410, 419 (1992)). Recognizing as much,
this Court has said that pre-code practice may sometimes
inform our interpretation of the code's more “ambiguous”
provisions. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, 566 U. S., at 649.
While we discern no ambiguity in § 1123(b)(6) for the rea-
sons explored above, historical practice confrms the lesson
we take from it. Every bankruptcy law the parties and
their amici have pointed us to, from 1800 until 1978, gener-
to confer upon bankruptcy courts a novel and extraordinary power to ex-
tinguish claims against third parties without claimants' consent. See
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U. S. 451, 465 (2017).
Page Proof Pending Publication

224 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
ally reserved the benefts of discharge to the debtor who
offered
a “fair and full surrender of [its] property.” Sturges
v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 176 (1819); accord, Central
Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U. S. 356, 363–364
(2006); see, e. g., Bankruptcy Act of 1800, § 5, 2 Stat. 23 (re-
pealed 1803); Act of Aug. 19, 1841, § 3, 5 Stat. 442–443 (re-
pealed 1843); Act of Mar. 2, 1867, §§ 11, 29, 14 Stat. 521, 531–
532 (repealed 1878); Bankruptcy Act of 1898, §§ 7, 14, 30 Stat.
548, 550 (repealed 1978). No one has directed us to a statute
or case suggesting American courts in the past enjoyed the
power in bankruptcy to discharge claims brought by non-
debtors against other nondebtors, all without the consent of
those affected. Surely, if Congress had meant to reshape
traditional practice so profoundly in the present bankruptcy
code, extending to courts the capacious new power the plan
proponents claim, one might have expected it to say so
expressly “somewhere in the [c]ode itself.” Dewsnup, 502
U. S., at 420.
6
III
Faced with so many marks against its interpretation of
the law, plan proponents and the dissent resort to a policy
argument. The Sacklers, they remind us, have signaled that
they will not return any funds to Purdue's estate unless the
bankruptcy court grants them the sweeping nonconsensual
release and injunction they seek. Absent these concessions,
plan proponents and the dissent emphatically predict, “there
will be no viable path” for victims to recover even $3,500
6
The dissent declares pre-code practice irrelevant to the task at hand
and insists the power to order nonconsensual releases has been settled by
“decades” of bankruptcy court practice. Post, at 229, 231, 234, 236, 274–
275. But in resisting the notion that pre-code practice may inform our
work, the dissent defes our precedents. And in appealing to “decades”
of lower court practice, the dissent seems to forget why we took this case
in the frst place: to resolve a longstanding and deeply entrenched dis-
agreement between lower courts over the legality of nonconsensual third-
party releases. See n. 1, supra.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
225
Opinion of the Court
each. Tr. of Oral Arg. 100–101; Brief for Sackler Family 27;
see
Brief for Respondent Offcial Committee of Unsecured
Creditors of Purdue Pharma L. P. et al. 45–46; post, at 230,
246–253, 276–278.
The U. S. Trustee disputes that assessment. Yes, he says,
reversing the Second Circuit may cause Purdue's current re-
organization plan to unravel. But that would also mean the
Sacklers would face lawsuits by individual victims, States,
other governmental entities, and perhaps even fraudulent-
transfer claims from the bankruptcy estate. So much legal
exposure, the Trustee asserts, may induce the Sacklers to
negotiate consensual releases on terms more favorable to
opioid victims. Brief for Petitioner 47–48. The Sacklers
may “want global peace,” the Trustee acknowledges, but
that doesn't “mea[n] that they wouldn't pay a lot for 97.5
percent peace.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 26. After all, the Trustee
reminds us, during the appeal in this very case, the Sacklers
agreed to increase their contribution by more than $1 billion
in order to secure the consent of the eight objecting States.
If past is prologue, the Trustee says, there may be a better
deal on the horizon.
7
Even putting that aside, the Trustee urges us to consider
the ramifcations of this case for others. Nonconsensual
third-party releases, he observes, allow tortfeasors to win
immunity from the claims of their victims, including for
claims (like wrongful death and fraud) they could not dis-
7
The parties likewise spar over whether, absent the Sacklers' discharge,
the family could deplete the estate by asserting indemnifcation claims
against the company. Plan proponents and the dissent point to a 2004
agreement that commits Purdue to cover certain liability and legal ex-
penses the Sacklers incur. Brief for Purdue 10; post, at 247–250. But
here again, the Trustee sees things differently. He underscores the plan
proponents' concession that the 2004 agreement “does not apply if a court
determines the Sacklers `did not act in good faith.' ” Reply Brief 16.
And, he adds, bankruptcy courts have a variety of statutory tools at their
disposal to disallow or equitably subordinate any potential indemnifcation
claims the Sacklers might pursue. Ibid. (citing §§ 502(e)(1)(B), 510(c)(1)).
Page Proof Pending Publication

226 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Opinion of the Court
charge in bankruptcy, and do so without placing anything
approach
ing all of their assets on the table. Endorsing that
maneuver, the Trustee says, would provide a “roadmap for
corporations and wealthy individuals to misuse the bank-
ruptcy system” in future cases “to avoid mass-tort liability.”
Brief for Petitioner 44–45.
Both sides of this policy debate may have their points.
But, in the end, we are the wrong audience for them. As
the people's elected representatives, Members of Congress
enjoy the power, consistent with the Constitution, to make
policy judgments about the proper scope of a bankruptcy dis-
charge. Someday, Congress may choose to add to the bank-
ruptcy code special rules for opioid-related bankruptcies as
it has for asbestos-related cases. Or it may choose not to do
so. Either way, if a policy decision like that is to be made,
it is for Congress to make. Despite the misimpression left
by today's dissent, our only proper task is to interpret and
apply the law as we fnd it; and nothing in present law au-
thorizes the Sackler discharge.
IV
As important as the question we decide today are ones we
do not. Nothing in what we have said should be construed
to call into question consensual third-party releases offered
in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan; those
sorts of releases pose different questions and may rest on
different legal grounds than the nonconsensual release at
issue here. See, e. g., In re Specialty Equipment Cos., 3
F. 3d 1043, 1047 (CA7 1993). Nor do we have occasion today
to express a view on what qualifes as a consensual release
or pass upon a plan that provides for the full satisfaction of
claims against a third-party nondebtor. Additionally, be-
cause this case involves only a stayed reorganization plan,
we do not address whether our reading of the bankruptcy
code would justify unwinding reorganization plans that have
already become effective and been substantially consum-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
227
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
mated. Confning ourselves to the question presented, we
hold
only that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a re-
lease and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization
under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims
against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claim-
ants. Because the Second Circuit ruled otherwise, its judg-
ment is reversed and the case is remanded for further pro-
ceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kavanaugh, with whom The Chief Justice,
Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.
Today's decision is wrong on the law and devastating for
more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families. The
Court's decision rewrites the text of the U. S. Bankruptcy
Code and restricts the long-established authority of bank-
ruptcy courts to fashion fair and equitable relief for mass-
tort victims. As a result, opioid victims are now deprived
of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought
for and fnally secured after years of litigation.
Bankruptcy seeks to solve a collective-action problem and
prevent a race to the courthouse by individual creditors who,
if successful, could obtain all of a company's assets, leaving
nothing for all the other creditors. The bankruptcy system
works to preserve a bankrupt company's limited assets and
to then fairly and equitably distribute those assets among
the creditors—and in mass-tort bankruptcies, among the
victims. To do so, the Bankruptcy Code vests bankruptcy
courts with broad discretion to approve “appropriate” plan
provisions. 11 U. S. C. § 1123(b)(6).
In this mass-tort bankruptcy case, the Bankruptcy Court
exercised that discretion appropriately—indeed, admirably.
It approved a bankruptcy reorganization plan for Purdue
Pharma that built up the estate to approximately $7 billion
by securing a $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment from the
Sacklers, who were offcers and directors of Purdue. The
Page Proof Pending Publication

228 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
plan then guaranteed substantial and equitable compensation
to
Purdue's many victims and creditors, including more than
100,000 individual opioid victims. The plan also provided
signifcant funding for thousands of state and local govern-
ments to prevent and treat opioid addiction.
The plan was a shining example of the bankruptcy system
at work. Not surprisingly, therefore, virtually all of the opi-
oid victims and creditors in this case fervently support ap-
proval of Purdue's bankruptcy reorganization plan. And all
50 state Attorneys General have signed on to the plan—a
rare consensus. The only relevant exceptions to the nearly
universal desire for plan approval are a small group of Cana-
dian creditors and one lone individual.
But the Court now throws out the plan—and in doing so,
categorically prohibits non-debtor releases, which have long
been a critical tool for bankruptcy courts to manage mass-
tort bankruptcies like this one. The Court's decision fnds
no mooring in the Bankruptcy Code. Under the Code, all
agree that a bankruptcy plan can nonconsensually release
victims' and creditors' claims against a bankrupt company—
here, against Purdue. Yet the Court today says that a plan
can never release victims' and creditors' claims against non-
debtor offcers and directors of the company—here, against
the Sacklers.
That is true, the Court says, even when (as here) those
non-debtor releases are necessary to facilitate a fair settle-
ment with the offcers and directors and produce a signif-
cantly larger bankruptcy estate that can be fairly and equita-
bly distributed among the victims and creditors. And that
is true, the Court also says, even when (as here) those off-
cers and directors are indemnifed by the company. When
offcers and directors are indemnifed by the company, a vic-
tim's or creditor's claim against the non-debtors “is, in es-
sence, a suit against the debtor” that could “deplete the
assets of the estate” for the beneft of only a few, just like a
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
229
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
claim against the company itself. In re Purdue Pharma
L.
P., 69 F. 4th 45, 78 (CA2 2023) (quotation marks omitted).
It therefore makes little legal, practical, or economic sense
to say, as the Court does, that the victims' and creditors'
claims against the debtor can be released, but that it would
be categorically “inappropriate” to release their identical
claims against non-debtors even when they are indemnifed
or when the release generates a signifcant settlement pay-
ment by the non-debtor to the estate.
For decades, bankruptcy courts and courts of appeals have
determined that non-debtor releases can be appropriate and
essential in mass-tort cases like this one. Non-debtor re-
leases have enabled substantial and equitable relief to vic-
tims in cases ranging from asbestos, Dalkon Shield, and Dow
Corning silicone breast implants to the Catholic Church and
the Boy Scouts. As leading scholars on bankruptcy explain,
“the bankruptcy community has recognized the resolution
of mass tort claims as a widely accepted core function of
bankruptcy courts for decades”—and they emphasize that a
“key feature in every mass tort bankruptcy” has been the
non-debtor release. A. Casey & J. Macey, In Defense of
Chapter 11 for Mass Torts, 90 U. Chi. L. Rev. 973, 974, 977
(2023).
No longer.
Given the broad statutory text—“appropriate”—and the
history of bankruptcy practice approving non-debtor re-
leases in mass-tort bankruptcies, there is no good reason for
the debilitating effects that the decision today imposes on
the opioid victims in this case and on the bankruptcy system
at large. To be sure, many Americans have deep hostility
toward the Sacklers. But allowing that animosity to infect
this bankruptcy case is entirely misdirected and counterpro-
ductive, and just piles even more injury onto the opioid vic-
tims. And no one can have more hostility toward the
Sacklers and a greater desire to go after the Sacklers' assets
Page Proof Pending Publication

230 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
than the opioid victims themselves. Yet the victims un-
equivoca
lly seek approval of this plan.
With the current plan now gone and non-debtor releases
categorically prohibited, the consequences will be severe, as
the victims and creditors forcefully explained. Without re-
leases, there will be no $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment
to the estate, and “there will be no viable path to any victim
recovery.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 100–101. And without the
plan's substantial funding to prevent and treat opioid addic-
tion, the victims and creditors bluntly described further re-
percussions: “more people will die without this Plan.” Brief
for Respondent Offcial Committee of Unsecured Creditors
of Purdue Pharma L. P. et al. 55.
In short: Despite the broad term “appropriate” in the stat-
utory text, despite the longstanding precedents approving
mass-tort bankruptcy plans with non-debtor releases like
these, despite 50 state Attorneys General signing on, and
despite the pleas of the opioid victims, today's decision cre-
ates a new atextual restriction on the authority of bank-
ruptcy courts to approve appropriate plan provisions. The
opioid victims and their families are deprived of their hard-
won relief. And the communities devastated by the opioid
crisis are deprived of the funding needed to help prevent and
treat opioid addiction. As a result of the Court's decision,
each victim and creditor receives the essential equivalent of
a lottery ticket for a possible future recovery for (at most) a
few of them. And as the Bankruptcy Court explained, with-
out the non-debtor releases, there is no good reason to be-
lieve that any of the victims or state or local governments
will ever recover anything. I respectfully but emphati-
cally dissent.
I
To map out this dissent for the reader: Part I (pages 231 to
244) discusses why non-debtor releases are often appropriate
and essential, particularly in mass-tort bankruptcies. Part
II (pages 244 to 256) explains why non-debtor releases were
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
231
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
appropriate and essential in the Purdue bankruptcy. Part
III
(pages 256 to 276) engages the Court's contrary argu-
ments and why I respectfully disagree with those argu-
ments. Part IV (pages 276 to 278) sums up.
Throughout this opinion, keep in mind the goal of bank-
ruptcy. The bankruptcy system is designed to preserve the
debtor's estate so as to ensure fair and equitable recovery
for creditors. Bankruptcy courts achieve that overarching
objective by, among other things, releasing claims that other-
wise could deplete the estate for the beneft of only a few
and leave all the other creditors with nothing. And as
courts have recognized for decades, especially in mass-tort
cases, non-debtor releases are not merely “appropriate,” but
can be absolutely critical to achieving the goal of bank-
r uptcy—fair and equit able recovery for v ic ti ms and
creditors.
A
Article I, § 8, of the Constitution affords Congress power
to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
throughout the United States” and to “make all Laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution”
that power.
Early in the Nation's history, Congress established the
bankruptcy system. In 1978, Congress significantly re-
vamped and reenacted the Bankruptcy Code in its current
form. Bankruptcy Code of 1978, 92 Stat. 2549.
The purpose of bankruptcy law is to address the collective-
action problem that a bankruptcy poses. T. Jackson, The
Logic and Limits of Bankruptcy Law 12–13 (1986). When a
company's liabilities exceed its ability to pay creditors, every
creditor has an incentive to maximize its own recovery be-
fore other creditors deplete the pot. Without a mandatory
collective system, the creditors would race to the courthouse
to recover frst. One or a few successful creditors could
then recover substantial funds, deplete the assets, and drive
the company under—leaving other creditors with nothing.
Page Proof Pending Publication

232 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
See id., at 7–19; D. Baird, A World Without Bankruptcy, 50
Law
& Contemp. Prob. 173, 183–184 (1987); T. Jackson, Bank-
ruptcy, Non-Bankruptcy Entitlements, and the Creditors'
Bargain, 91 Yale L. J. 857, 860–868 (1982).
Bankruptcy creates a way for creditors to “act as one, by
imposing a collective and compulsory proceeding on them.”
Jackson, Logic and Limits of Bankruptcy Law, at 13. One
of the goals of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in particu-
lar is to fairly distribute estate assets among creditors “in
order to prevent a race to the courthouse to dismember
the debtor.” 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶1100.01, p. 1100–3
(R. Levin & H. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2023). Chapter 11
is aimed at preserving an estate's value for distribution to
creditors in the face of that collective-action problem.
The basic Chapter 11 case runs as follows. After the
debtor fles for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, the debtor's
property becomes property of the bankruptcy estate. 11
U. S. C. § 541. Any litigation that might interfere with the
property of the estate is subject to an automatic stay, thus
preventing creditors from skipping the line by litigating in a
separate forum against the debtor while the bankruptcy is
ongoing. § 362.
With litigation paused, the parties craft a plan of reorgani-
zation for the debtor. The Code grants the bankruptcy
court sweeping powers to reorganize the debtor company
and ensure fair and equitable recovery for the creditors.
For example, the plan may authorize selling or retaining the
company's property; merging or consolidating the company;
or amending the company's charter. § 1123(a)(5). The sub-
section at issue here, § 1123(b), also authorizes many other
kinds of provisions that bankruptcy plans may include.
1
1
The full text of § 1123(b) provides that “a plan may—
“(1) impair or leave unimpaired any class of claims, secured or unse-
cured, or of interests;
“(2) subject to section 365 of this title, provide for the assumption,
rejection, or assignment of any executory contract or unexpired lease
of the debtor not previously rejected under such section;
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
233
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
Most relevant for this case, as I will explain, the reorganiza-
ti
on plan may impair and release “any class of claims” that
creditors hold against the debtor. § 1123(b)(1). The plan
may also settle and release “any claim or interest” that the
debtor company holds against non-debtors. § 1123(b)(3).
And the plan may include “any other appropriate provision
not inconsistent with the applicable provisions” of the Bank-
ruptcy Code. § 1123(b)(6).
To address any collective-action or holdout problem, the
bankruptcy court has the power to approve a reorganization
plan even without the consent of every creditor. If creditors
holding more than one-half in number (and at least two-
thirds in amount) of the claims in every class accept the plan,
the court can confrm the plan. §§ 1126(c), 1129(a)(8)(A). A
plan is “said to be confrmed consensually if all classes of
creditors vote in favor, even if some classes have dissent-
ing creditors.” 7 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶1129.01, at 1129–13.
That the bankruptcy system considers a plan with majority
(even if not unanimous) support to be “consensual” under-
scores that the bankruptcy system is designed to beneft
creditors collectively and prevent holdout problems.
Confrmation of the plan “generally discharges the debtor
from a l l debts that arose before confir mati on. ” Id.,
“(3) provide for—
“(A) the settlement or adjustment of any claim or interest belonging
to the debtor or to the estate; or
“(B) the retention and enforcement by the debtor, by the trustee, or
by a representative of the estate appointed for such purpose, of any
such claim or interest;
“(4) provide for the sale of all or substantially all of the property of
the estate, and the distribution of the proceeds of such sale among hold-
ers of claims or interests;
“(5) modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim
secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's
principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaf-
fected the rights of holders of any class of claims; and
“(6) include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the
applicable provisions of this title.”
Page Proof Pending Publication

234 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
¶1100.09[2][f], at 1100–42 (citing § 1141(d)). And all credi-
tors
are bound by the plan's distribution, even if some credi-
tors are not happy and oppose the plan. Ibid.
B
This is a mass-tort bankruptcy case. Mass-tort cases
present the same collective-action problem that bankruptcy
was designed to address. “Without a mandatory rule that
consolidates claims in a single tribunal, tort claimants would
rationally enter a race to the courthouse.” A. Casey &
J. Macey, In Defense of Chapter 11 for Mass Torts, 90 U. Chi.
L. Rev. 973, 997 (2023). And the “plaintiffs who bring suc-
cessful suits earlier are likely to drain the frm's resources,
while inconsistent judgments could result in inequitable pay-
outs even among plaintiffs who ultimately do collect.” Id.,
at 994.
For many decades now, bankruptcy law has stepped in as
a coordinating tribunal in signifcant mass-tort cases. When
a company that is liable for mass torts fles for bankruptcy,
the bankruptcy system enables (and requires) the mass-tort
victims who are seeking relief from the bankrupt company
to work together to reach a fair and equitable distribution of
the company's assets.
In many cases, there is no workable alternative other than
bankruptcy for achieving fair and equitable recovery for
mass-tort victims. “Outside of bankruptcy, ” victims face
“signifcant administrative costs” of multi-district litigation,
“which has limited coordination mechanisms and no tools for
binding future claimants.” Id., at 1005. And multi-district
litigation cannot “solve the collective action problem because
dissenting claimants can opt out of settlements even when
super majorities favor them.” Ibid.
Bankruptcy, on the other hand, reduces administrative
costs and allows all of the affected parties to come together,
pause litigation elsewhere, invoke procedural safeguards in-
cluding discovery, and reach a collective resolution that con-
siders both current and future victims. Cf. Federal Judicial
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
235
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
Center, S. E. Gibson, Case Studies of Mass Tort Limited
Fund
Class Action Settlements & Bankruptcy Reorganiza-
tions 6 (2000) (“bankruptcy reorganizations provide an inher-
ently fairer method of resolving mass tort claims” than alter-
native of class-action settlements).
In some cases—including mass-tort cases—it is not only
the debtor company, but rather another closely related per-
son or entity such as offcers and directors (non-debtors), who
may hold valuable assets and also be potentially liable for
the company's wrongdoing.
But it may be uncertain whether the victims can recover
in tort suits against the non-debtors due to legal hurdles or
diffculty reaching the non-debtors' assets. In those cases,
a settlement may be reached: In exchange for being released
from potential liability for any wrongdoing, the non-debtor
must make substantial payments to the company's bank-
ruptcy estate in order to compensate victims. As long as
the settlement is fair, the non-debtor's settlement payment
will beneft victims “by enlarging the pie of recoverable
funds” in the bankruptcy estate. Casey & Macey, 90 U. Chi.
L. Rev., at 1001. And it will reduce administrative costs,
because the victims' claims against both the debtor and the
non-debtor may be resolved “at the same time and in the
same tribunal.” Id., at 1002.
The non-debtor's settlement payment into the estate can
also solve a collective-action problem. Bringing the non-
debtor's assets into the bankruptcy estate enables those
assets to be distributed fairly and equitably among victims,
rather than swallowed up by the frst victim to successfully
sue the non-debtor. Id., at 1002–1003.
A separate collective-action problem can arise when the
insolvent company's offcers and directors are indemnifed by
the company for liability arising out of their job duties. In
such cases, “a suit against the non-debtor is, in essence, a
suit against the debtor.” In re Purdue Pharma L. P., 69
F. 4th 45, 78 (CA2 2023) (quotation marks omitted). If not
barred from doing so, the creditors could race to the court-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
236 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
house against the indemnifed offcers and directors for basi-
ca
lly the same claims that they hold against the debtor com-
pany. If successful, such suits would deplete the company's
assets because a judgment against the indemnifed offcers
and directors would likely come out of the debtor com-
pany's assets.
Another similar collective-action problem can involve lia-
bility insurance, a kind of indemnifcation relationship where
the insurer is on the hook for tort victims' claims against
the debtor company. See B. Zaretsky, Insurance Proceeds
in Bankruptcy, 55 Brooklyn L. Rev. 373, 375–376 (1989).
The insurance assets—meaning assets to the limits of the
debtor's insurance coverage—are usually a key asset for the
bankruptcy estate to compensate victims. But tort victims
also “may have direct action rights against the insurance
carrier, even, in some cases, bypassing the debtor-insured.”
5 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶541.10[3], at 541– 60. If victims
brought their claims directly against the insurer for the same
claims that they hold against the estate, one group of victims
could obtain from the insurer the full amount of the debtor's
coverage. That would obviously prevent the insurance
money from being used as part of the bankruptcy estate.
See Zaretsky, 55 Brooklyn L. Rev., at 376–377, 394–395.
To address those various collective-action problems, bank-
ruptcy courts have long found non-debtor releases to be ap-
propriate in certain complex bankruptcy cases, especially in
mass-tort bankruptcies. Indeed, that is precisely why non-
debtor releases emerged in asbestos mass-tort bankruptcies
in the 1980s. See id., at 405–414; Casey & Macey, 90 U. Chi.
L. Rev., at 998–999; see, e. g., MacArthur Co. v. Johns-
Manville Corp., 837 F. 2d 89 (CA2 1988). And that is pre-
cisely why non-debtor releases have become such a well-
established tool in mass-tort bankruptcies in the decades
since.
For example, after A. H. Robins declared bankruptcy in
1985 in the face of massive tort liability for injuries from

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
237
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
its defective intrauterine device, the Dalkon Shield, nearly
200,000
victims fled proof of claims. In re A. H. Robins Co.,
88 B. R. 742, 743–744, 747 (ED Va. 1988), aff'd, 880 F. 2d
694 (CA4 1989). A plan provision releasing the company's
directors and insurance company ensured that the estate
would not be depleted through indemnity or contribution
claims, or claims brought directly against the directors or
insurer. 88 B. R., at 751; 880 F. 2d, at 700–702. Preventing
the victims from engaging in “piecemeal litigation” against
the non-debtor directors and insurance company was the
only way to ensure “equality of treatment of similarly situ-
ated creditors.” 88 B. R., at 751. Therefore, the Bank-
ruptcy Court found (and the Fourth Circuit agreed) that the
release was “necessary and essential” to the bankruptcy's
success. Ibid.; see 880 F. 2d, at 701–702. The plan ulti-
mately provided for the victims to recover in full, and they
overwhelmingly approved the plan. Id., at 700–701.
A non-debtor release provision was similarly essential to
resolve hundreds of thousands of victims' tort claims against
Dow Corning Corporation, which declared bankruptcy in
1995 in the face of liability for its defective silicone breast
implants. See In re Dow Corning Corp., 287 B. R. 396, 397
(ED Mich. 2002). The non-debtor release provision pre-
vented the victims from suing Dow Corning 's insurers and
shareholders for their tort claims—which would have de-
pleted Dow Corning 's shared insurance assets and other
estate assets. Id., at 402–403, 406–408. The non-debtor
release provision was “essential” to the bankruptcy reorgani-
zation because the reorganization hinged “on the debtor
being free from indirect suits against parties who would have
indemnity or contribution claims against the debtor.” In re
Dow Corning Corp., 280 F. 3d 648, 658 (CA6 2002); 287 B. R.,
at 410–413.
The need for such a tool to deal with complex bankruptcy
cases has not gone away. Far from it. Indeed, without the
option of bankruptcy with non-debtor releases, “tort victims
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
238 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
in several recent high-profle cases would have received less
compensati
on; the compensation would have been unfairly
distributed; and the administrative costs of resolving their
claims would have been higher.” Casey & Macey, 90 U. Chi.
L. Rev., at 979; see also Brief for Law Professors in Support
of Respondents as Amici Curiae 21–25; Brief for Certain
Former Commissioners of the American Bankruptcy Insti-
tute's Commission To Study the Reform of Chapter 11 as
Amici Curiae 9–11; Brief for Association of the Bar of the
City of New York as Amicus Curiae 9, 11–15.
Consider two recent examples that ensured recovery for
the victims of torts committed by the Boy Scouts of America
and by several dioceses of the Catholic Church. In both
cases, a national or regional organization was the debtor in
the bankruptcy. But that organization shared its liability
and its insurance policy with numerous other legally sepa-
rate and autonomous local entities. Without a coordinating
mechanism, a victim's (or group of victims') recovery against
one local entity could have eaten up all of the shared insur-
ance assets, leaving all of the other victims with nothing.
Brief for Boy Scouts of America as Amicus Curiae 9–14, 17–
19; Brief for U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as Amicus
Curiae 9–22.
Bankruptcy provided a forum to coordinate liability and
insurance assets. A non-debtor release provision prevented
victims from litigating outside of the bankruptcy plan's pro-
cedures. And the provision therefore prevented one victim
or group of victims from obtaining all of the insurance funds
before other victims recovered. As a result, in each case,
the local entities were able to pool their resources to create a
substantial fund in a single bankruptcy estate to compensate
victims substantially and fairly. Brief for Boy Scouts of
America as Amicus Curiae 11–12, 20–21; Brief for Ad Hoc
Group of Local Councils of the Boy Scouts of America as
Amicus Curiae 5–6; Brief for U. S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops as Amicus Curiae 15–16.

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
239
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
As those examples show, in some cases where various
closely
related but distinct parties share liability or share
assets (or both), bankruptcy “provides the only forum in the
U. S. legal system where a unifed and complete resolution of
mass-tort cases can reliably occur in a manner that results
in a fair recovery and distribution for all claimants.” Brief
for Association of the Bar of the City of New York as Amicus
Curiae 15. And the bankruptcy system could not do so
without non-debtor releases.
C
The Bankruptcy Code gives bankruptcy courts authority
to approve non-debtor releases to solve the complex
collective-action problems that such cases present. As
noted above, a Chapter 11 reorganization plan may release
creditor claims against debtors. § 1123(b)(1). And a plan
may settle and release debtor claims against non-debtors.
§ 1123(b)(3).
In addition, the plan may also include “any other appro-
priate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provi-
sions of ” the Code. § 1123(b)(6). Section 1123(b)(6) pro-
vides ample fexibility for the reorganization plan to settle
and release creditor claims against non-debtors who are
closely related to the debtor. For example, offcers and di-
rectors may be indemnifed by the debtor company; in those
cases, creditor claims against indemnifed non-debtors are es-
sentially the same as creditor claims against the debtor busi-
ness itself. Or the non-debtors may reach a settlement with
the victims and creditors where the non-debtors pay a settle-
ment amount to the estate, which in some cases may be
the only way to ensure fair and equitable recovery for the
victims and creditors. The non-debtor releases—just like
debtor releases under § 1123(b)(1) and non-debtor releases
under § 1123(b)(3)—can be essential to preserve and increase
the estate's assets and can be essential to ensure fair and
equitable victim and creditor recovery.
Page Proof Pending Publication

240 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
The key statutory term in § 1123(b)(6) is “appropriate.”
As
this Court has often said, “appropriate” is a “broad and
all-encompassing term that naturally and traditionally in-
cludes consideration of all the relevant factors.” Michigan
v. EPA, 576 U. S. 743, 752 (2015) (quotation marks omitted).
Because determining propriety requires exercising judg-
ment, the inquiry must include a degree of “fexibility.”
Ibid. The Court has explained on numerous occasions that
the “ordinary meaning ” of a statute authorizing appropriate
relief “confers broad discretion” on a court. School Comm.
of Burlington v. Department of Ed. of Mass., 471 U. S. 359,
369 (1985); see also, e. g., Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478
U. S. 421, 446 (1986) (plurality opinion) (Title VII “vest[s]
district courts with broad discretion to award `appropriate'
equitable relief ”); Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U. S.
384, 400 (1990) (“In directing the district court to impose an
`appropriate' sanction, Rule 11 itself indicates that the dis-
trict court is empowered to exercise its discretion”). Be-
cause the “language is open-ended on its face,” whether a
provision is “appropriate is inherently context dependent.”
Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U. S. 43, 49 (2020) (quotation marks
omitted).
By allowing “any other appropriate provision,” § 1123(b)(6)
empowers a bankruptcy court to exercise reasonable discre-
tion. That § 1123 confers broad discretion makes eminent
sense, given “the policies of fexibility and equity built into
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.” NLRB v. Bildisco
& Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 525 (1984). Such flexibility is
i mpor t ant to ach ieve Chapter 11's ever-elusive goa l of
ensur ing fair and equitable recovery to creditors. See
§§ 1129(a)(7), (b)(1).
The catchall authority in Chapter 11 therefore empow-
ers a bankruptcy court to exercise its discretion to deal
with complex scenarios, like the collective-action problems
that plague mass-tort bankruptcies. Non-debtor releases
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
241
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
are of ten appropr iate —i ndeed are essentia l—i n such
circumst
ances.
And courts have therefore long found non-debtor releases
to be appropriate in certain narrow circumstances under
§ 1123(b)(6). Indeed, courts have been approving such non-
debtor releases almost as long as the current Bankruptcy
Code has existed since its enactment in 1978. See, e. g.,
In re Johns-Manville Corp., 68 B. R. 618, 624–626 (Bkrtcy.
Ct. SDNY 1986), aff'd, 837 F. 2d, at 90; A. H. Robins Co., 88
B. R., at 751, aff'd, 880 F. 2d, at 696. Historical and contem-
porary practice demonstrate that non-debtor releases are es-
pecially appropriate when (as here) non-debtor releases and
corresponding settlement payments preserve and increase
the debtor's estate and thereby ensure fair and equitable re-
covery for creditors.
Over those decades of practice, courts have developed and
applied numerous factors for determining whether a non-
debtor release is “appropriate” in a given case. § 1123(b)(6);
see H. Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, 31 Emory
L. J. 747, 771–773 (1982) (noting the common-law-like process
by which factors important to a discretionary decision de-
velop over time). Those factors refect the fact that deter-
mining whether a non-debtor release is “appropriate” is a
holistic inquiry that depends on the precise facts and circum-
stances of each case. And the factors have served to confne
the use of non-debtor releases to well-defned and narrow
circumstances—precisely those circumstances where the
collective-action problems arise.
For instance, since the 1980s, the Second Circuit has been
a leader on the non-debtor release issue. See, e. g., Johns-
Manville Corp., 837 F. 2d 89 (1988); In re Drexel Burn-
ham Lambert Group, Inc., 960 F. 2d 285 (1992); In re Metro-
media Fiber Network, Inc., 416 F. 3d 136 (2005). Over time,
the Second Circuit has developed a non-exhaustive list of
factors for determining whether a non-debtor release is ap-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
242 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
propriately employed and appropriately tailored in a given
case
.
First, and critically, the court must determine whether the
released party is closely related to the debtor—for example,
through an indemnifcation agreement—where “a suit
against the non-debtor is, in essence, a suit against the
debtor or will deplete the assets of the estate.” 69 F. 4th,
at 78 (quotation marks omitted). Second, the court must de-
termine if the claims against the non-debtor are “factually
and legally intertwined” with claims against the debtor.
Ibid. Third, the court must ensure that the “scope of the
releases” is tailored to only the claims that must be released
to protect the plan. Ibid. Fourth, even then, the court
should approve the release only if it is truly “essential” to
the plan's success and the reorganization would fail without
it. Ibid. Fifth, the court must consider whether, as part
of the settlement, the non-debtor party has paid “substantial
assets” to the estate. Ibid. Sixth, the court should deter-
mine if the plan provides “fair payment” to creditors for their
released claims. Id., at 79. Seventh, the court must ensure
that the creditors “overwhelmingly” approve of the release,
which the Second Circuit defned as a 75 percent “bare mini-
mum.” Id., at 78–79 (quotation marks omitted).
2
Factors one through four ensure that the releases are nec-
essary to solve collective-action problems that threaten the
bankruptcy and prevent fair and equitable recovery for the
victims and creditors. Factor fve makes sure that the re-
leases are not a free ride for the non-debtor. Factor six en-
sures that the victims and creditors receive fair compensa-
tion. Together, factors fve and six assess whether there
2
Other Courts of Appeals have used similar factors for evaluating non-
debtor releases. See, e. g., In re Seaside Engineering & Surveying, Inc.,
780 F. 3d 1070, 1079–1081 (CA11 2015); National Heritage Foundation,
Inc. v. Highbourne Foundation, 760 F. 3d 344, 347–351 (CA4 2014); In re
Dow Corning Corp., 280 F. 3d 648, 658–661 (CA6 2002).

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
243
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
has been a fair settlement given the probability of victims'
and
creditors' recovery from the non-debtor and the likely
amount of any such recovery. And factor seven ensures that
the vast majority of victims and creditors approve, meaning
that the release is solving a holdout problem.
As the Courts of Appeals' comprehensive factors illus-
trate, § 1123(b)(6) limits a bankruptcy court's authority in im-
portant respects. A non-debtor release must be “appro-
priate” given all of the facts and circumstances of the case.
And as the history of non-debtor releases illustrates, the
appropriateness requirement confnes the use of non-debtor
releases to narrow and relatively rare circumstances where
the releases are necessary to help victims and creditors
achieve fair and equitable recovery.
As long as every class of victims and creditors supports
the plan by a majority vote in number and at least a two-
thirds vote in amount, the plan is “said to be confrmed con-
sensually,” “even if some classes have dissenting creditors.”
7 Collier, Bankruptcy ¶1129.01, at 1129–13. And the Courts
of Appeals have allowed non-debtor releases only when there
is an even higher level of supermajority victim and creditor
approval. In the mass-tort bankruptcy cases, most plans
have easily cleared that bar and received close to 100 percent
approval. E. g., Johns-Manville Corp., 68 B. R., at 631 (95
percent approval); A. H. Robins Co., 880 F. 2d, at 700 (over
94 percent approval); Dow Corning, 287 B. R., at 413 (over
94 percent approval); 69 F. 4th, at 82 (over 95 percent ap-
proval here). So in reality, as opposed to rhetoric, the non-
debtor releases in mass-tort bankruptcy plans, including this
one, have been approved by all but a comparatively small
group of victims and creditors.
In every bankruptcy of this kind, moreover, the plan non-
consensually releases victims' and creditors' claims against
the debtor. The only difference with non-debtor releases is
that they release victims' and creditors' claims not against
Page Proof Pending Publication

244 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
the debtor but rather against non-debtors who are closely
r
elated to the debtor, such as indemnified officers and
directors.
II
In this case, as in many past mass-tort bankruptcies, the
non-debtor releases were appropriate and therefore author-
i zed by 11 U. S. C. § 1123( b)(6) of the Code. The non-
debtor releases were needed to ensure meaningful victim
and creditor recovery in the face of multiple collective-
action problems.
A
Purdue Pharma was a pharmaceutical company owned and
directed by the extended Sackler family. Brothers Arthur,
Mortimer, and Raymond Sackler purchased the company in
1952. Since then, Purdue has been wholly owned by entities
and trusts established for the beneft of Mortimer Sackler's
and Raymond Sackler's families and descendants, and those
families also closely controlled Purdue's operations.
In the 1990s, Purdue developed the drug OxyContin, a
powerful and addictive opioid painkiller. Purdue aggres-
sively marketed that drug and downplayed or hid its ad-
dictive qualities. OxyContin helped people to manage pain.
But the drug 's addictive qua lities led to its widespread
abuse. OxyContin played a central role in the opioid-abuse
crisis from which millions of Americans and their families
continue to suffer.
Starting in the early 2000s, governments and individual
plaintiffs began to sue Purdue for the harm caused by Oxy-
Contin. In 2007, Purdue settled large swaths of those
claims and pled guilty to felony misbranding of OxyContin.
But within the next decade, victims of the opioid crisis and
their families, along with state and local governments fght-
ing the crisis, began fling a new wave of lawsuits, this time
also naming members of the Sackler family as defendants.
Today, those claims amount to more than $40 trillion worth
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
245
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
of alleged damages against Purdue and the Sacklers. (For
perspec
tive, $40 trillion is about seven times the total annual
spending of the U. S. Government.)
As the litigation by victims and state and local govern-
ments mounted, the U. S. Government then brought federal
criminal and civil charges against Purdue. The U. S. Gov-
ernment has not brought criminal charges against any of the
Sacklers individually. Nor have any States brought crimi-
nal charges against any of the Sacklers individually.
As to the criminal charges against Purdue, the company
pled guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States, to
violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and to violate the
federal anti-kickback statute. As part of the global resolu-
tion of the charges, Purdue agreed to a $2 billion judgment
to the U. S. Government that would be “deemed to have the
status of an allowed superpriority” claim in bankruptcy. 17
App. in No. 22–110 etc. (CA2), p. 4804. The U. S. Govern-
ment agreed not to “initiate any further criminal charges
against Purdue.” 16 id., at 4798.
Unable to pay its colossal potential liabilities, Purdue fled
for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
The ensuing case exemplifed the fexibility and common
sense of the bankruptcy system at work.
The proceedings were extraordinarily complex. The case
involved “likely the largest creditor body ever,” and the
number of claims fled—totaling more than 600,000—was
likely “a record.” In re Purdue Pharma L. P., 633 B. R. 53,
58 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 2021). Further complicating matters
was the need to allocate funds between, on the one hand,
individual victims and the hospitals that urgently needed re-
lief and, on the other hand, government entities at all levels
that urgently needed funds for opioid crisis prevention and
treatment efforts. Id., at 83.
Aided by perhaps “the most extensive discovery process”
that “any court in bankruptcy has ever seen,” the parties
engaged in prolonged arms-length negotiations. Id., at 85–
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
246 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
86. They ultimately agreed on a multi-faceted compensation
plan
for the victims and creditors and reorganization plan for
Purdue. Under that plan, Purdue would cease to exist and
would be replaced with a new company that would manufac-
ture opioid-abatement medications. And approximately $7
billion would be distributed among nine trusts to compensate
victims and creditors and to fund efforts to abate the opioid
crisis by preventing and treating addiction.
To determine how to allocate the $7 billion, the victims
and creditors then engaged in a series of “heavily negotiated
and intricately woven compromises” and devised a “complex
allocation” of the funds to different classes of victims and
creditors. Id., at 83, 90. In the end, more than 95 percent
of voting victims and creditors approved of the distribution
scheme.
That plan would distribute billions of dollars to communi-
ties to use exclusively for prevention and treatment pro-
grams. And $700 to $750 million was set aside to compen-
sate individual tort victims and their families. 1 App. 561.
Opioid victims and their families would each receive some-
where between $3,500 and $48,000 depending on the category
of claim and level of harm. Id., at 573–584; 6 App. in
No. 22–110 etc. (CA2), at 1695.
B
Under the reorganization plan, victims' and creditors'
claims against Purdue Pharma were released (even if some
victims and creditors did not consent). As in other mass-
tort bankruptcies described above, a related and equally es-
sential facet of the Purdue plan was the non-debtor release
provision. Under that provision, the victims' and creditors'
claims against the Sacklers were also released. As a result,
Purdue's victims and creditors could not later sue either Pur-
due Pharma or members of the Sackler family (the offcers
and directors of Purdue Pharma) for Purdue's and the
Sacklers' opioid-related activities.

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
247
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
The non-debtor release provision prevented a race to the
c
our thouse against the Sacklers. As a resu lt, the non-
debtor release provision solved two separate collective-
action problems that dogged Purdue's mass-tort bankruptcy:
(i) It protected Purdue's estate from the risk of being
depleted by indemnifcation claims, and (ii) it operated as a
settlement of potential claims against the Sacklers and thus
enabled the Sacklers' large settlement payment to the estate.
That settlement payment in turn quadrupled the amount in
the Purdue estate and enabled substantially greater recov-
ery for the victims.
I will now explain both of those important points in some
detail.
First, and critical to a proper understanding of this case,
the non-debtor release provision was essential to preserve
Purdue's existing assets. By preserving the estate, the non-
debtor release provision ensured that the assets could be
fairly and equitably apportioned among all victims and credi-
tors rather than devoured by one group of potentia l
plaintiffs.
How? Pursuant to a 2004 indemnification agreement,
Purdue had agreed to pay for liability and legal expenses
that offcers and directors of Purdue faced for decisions re-
lated to Purdue, including opioid-related decisions. See
In re Purdue Pharma L. P., 69 F. 4th 45, 58–59 (CA2 2023).
That indemnifcation agreement covered judgments against
the Sacklers and related legal expenses.
As explained above, the Sacklers wholly owned and con-
trolled Purdue, a closely held corporation. The Sacklers
“took a major role” in running Purdue, including making de-
cisions about “Purdue's practices regarding its opioid prod-
ucts.” 633 B. R., at 93. In short, the Sacklers potentially
shared much of the liability that Purdue faced for Purdue's
opioid practices. See In re Purdue Pharma, L. P., 635 B. R.
26, 87 (SDNY 2021) (claims against the Sacklers are “deeply
Page Proof Pending Publication

248 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
connected with, if not entirely identical to,” claims against
Purdue
(quotation marks omitted)); see also 633 B. R., at 108.
But due to the indemnifcation agreement, if victims and
creditors were to sue the Sacklers directly for claims related
to Purdue or opioids, the Sacklers would have a reasonable
basis to seek reimbursement from Purdue for liability and
litigation costs. So Purdue could potentially be on the hook
for a substantial amount of the Sacklers' liability and litiga-
tion costs. In such indemnifcation relationships, “a suit
against the non-debtor is, in essence, a suit against the
debtor or will deplete the assets of the estate.” 69 F. 4th,
at 78 (quotation marks omitted).
As a real-world matter, therefore, opioid-related claims
against the Sacklers could come out of the same pot of Pur-
due money as opioid-related claims against Purdue. So re-
leasing claims against the Sacklers is not meaningfully dif-
ferent from releasing claims against Purdue itself, which the
bankruptcy plan here of course also mandated. Both sets of
releases were necessary to preserve Purdue's estate so that
it was available for all victims and creditors to recover fairly
and equitably. Otherwise, the estate could be zeroed out:
A few victims or creditors could race to the courthouse and
obtain recovery from Purdue or the Sacklers (ultimately the
same pot of money) and thereby deplete the assets of the
company and leave nothing for everyone else.
To fully understand why both sets of releases were neces-
sary—against Purdue and against the Sacklers—suppose
that the plan did not release the Sacklers from opioid- and
Purdue-related liability. Victims' and creditors' opioid-
related claims against Purdue would be discharged in Pur-
due's bankruptcy (even without their consent). But any vic-
tims or creditors could still sue the Sacklers for essentially
the same claims.
Suppose that a State or a group of victims sued the
Sacklers and received a large reward. The Sacklers “would
have a reasonable basis to seek indemnifcation” from Purdue
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
249
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
for judgments and legal expenses. Id., at 72. Therefore,
any
liability judgments and litigation costs for certain plain-
tiffs in their suits against the Sacklers could “deplete the
res” of Purdue's bankruptcy—meaning that there might well
be nothing left for all of the other victims and creditors. Id.,
at 80. Even if the Sacklers' indemnifcation claims against
Purdue were unsuccessful, Purdue would “be required to liti-
gate” those claims, which would likely diminish the res, “no
matter the ultimate outcome of those claims.” Ibid.
Every victim and creditor knows that a single judgment
by someone else against the Sacklers could deplete the Pur-
due estate and leave nothing for anyone else. So every
victim and creditor would have an incentive to race to the
courthouse to sue the Sacklers. A classic collective-action
problem.
The non-debtor releases of claims against the Sacklers pre-
vented that collective-action problem in the same way that
the releases of claims against Purdue itself prevented the
identical collective-action problem. Both protected Pur-
due's assets from being consumed by the frst to sue success-
fully. And the non-debtor releases were narrowly tailored
to the problem. The non-debtor releases enjoined victims
and creditors from bringing claims against the Sacklers only
in cases where Purdue's conduct, or the victims' or creditors'
claims asserted against Purdue, was a legal cause or a legally
relevant factor to the cause of action against the Sacklers.
633 B. R., at 97–98 (defning the release to encompass only
claims that “directly affect the res of the Debtors' estates,”
such as claims that would trigger the Sacklers' “rights to
indemnifcation and contribution”); see also id., at 105. In
other words, the releases applied only to claims for which
the Sacklers had a reasonable basis to seek coverage or reim-
bursement from Purdue.
The non-debtor release provision therefore released claims
against the Sacklers that are essentially the same as claims
against Purdue. Doing so preserved Purdue's bankruptcy
Page Proof Pending Publication

250 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
estate so that it could be fairly apportioned among the vic-
ti
ms and creditors.
Second, the non-debtor releases not only preserved the ex-
isting Purdue estate; those non-debtor releases also greatly
increased the funds in the Purdue estate so that the victims
and creditors could receive greater compensation.
Standing alone, Purdue's estate is estimated to be worth
approximately $1.8 billion—a small fraction of the sizable
claims against Purdue. Id., at 90; 22 App. in No. 22–110 etc.
(CA2), at 6507. If that were all the money on the table, the
Bankruptcy Court found, the victims and creditors “would
probably recover nothing ” from Purdue's estate. 633 B. R.,
at 109. That is because the United States holds a $2 billion
“superpriority” claim, meaning that the United States would
be frst in line to recover ahead of all of the victims and
other creditors. The United States' claim would wipe out
Purdue's entire $1.8 billion value. “As a result, many vic-
tims of the opioid crisis would go without any assistance.”
69 F. 4th, at 80.
So for the victims and other creditors to have any hope
of meaningful recovery, Purdue's bankruptcy estate needed
more funds.
Where to fnd those funds? The Sacklers' assets were the
answer. Af ter vigorous negotiati ons, a settlement was
reached: In exchange for the releases, the Sacklers ultimately
agreed to make signifcant payments to Purdue's estate—be-
tween $5.5 and $6 billion. Adding that substantial amount
to Purdue's comparatively smaller bankruptcy estate enabled
Purdue's reorganization plan to distribute an estimated $7
billion or more to the victims and creditors—thereby quad-
rupling the size of the estate available for distribution.
With that enhanced estate, the plan garnered 95 percent sup-
port from the voting victims and creditors. That high level
of support tends to show that this was a very good plan for
the victims and creditors. Because it led to that high level
of support, the Sacklers' multi-billion-dollar payment was
critical to creating a successful reorganization plan.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
251
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
That payment was made possible by heavily negotiated
settlements
among Purdue, the victims and creditors, and
the Sacklers. Most relevant here, in exchange for the
Sacklers agreeing to pay billions of dollars to the bankruptcy
estate, the victims and creditors agreed to release their
claims against the Sacklers. The settlement—exchanging
releases for the Sacklers' $5.5 to $6 billion payment—enabled
the victims and creditors to avoid “the signifcant risk, cost
and delay (potentially years) that would result from pursuing
the Sacklers and related parties through litigation.” 1
App. 31.
Indeed, after a 6-day trial involving 41 witnesses, the
Bankruptcy Court found that the settlement provided the
best chance for the victims and creditors to ever see any
money from the Sacklers. See 633 B. R., at 85, 90. (That
is a critical point that the Court today whiffs on.) Indeed,
the Bankruptcy Court found that the victims and creditors
would be unlikely to recover from the Sacklers by suing the
Sacklers directly due to numerous potential weaknesses in
and defenses to the victims' and creditors' legal theories.
See id., at 90–93, 108. Even if the suits were successful, the
Bankruptcy Court expressed “signifcant concern” about the
ability to collect any judgments from the Sacklers due to the
diffculty of reaching their assets in foreign countries and in
spendthrift trusts. Id., at 89; see also id., at 108–109.
For those reasons, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that
the $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment and the releases
were fair and equitable and in the victims' and creditors' best
interest. Id., at 107–109, 112. The settlement amount of
$5.5 to $6 billion was “properly negotiated” and “refects the
underlying strengths and weaknesses of the opposing par-
ties' legal positions and issues of collection.” Id., at 93.
3
3
The Court implies that some victims could recover from the Sacklers
in tort litigation up to the total of their combined assets, and that the
Sacklers are somehow getting off easy by paying only $5.5 to $6 billion.
But the Court's belief is not rooted in reality given the Bankruptcy Court's
undisputed factual fndings to the contrary: Large tort recoveries against
Page Proof Pending Publication

252 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
From the victims' and creditors' perspective, “suing the
Sacklers
would have been a costly endeavor with a small
chance of success. From the Sacklers' perspective, defend-
ing those suits would have been a costly endeavor with a
very small chance of a large liability.” A. Casey & J. Macey,
In Defense of Chapter 11 for Mass Torts, 90 U. Chi. L. Rev.
973, 1004 (2023). So as in many litigation settlements, the
parties agreed to the $5.5 to $6 billion settlement in light of
that “very small chance of a large liability.” Ibid.
Importantly, the victims and creditors—who obviously
have no love for the Sacklers—insisted on the releases of
their claims against the Sacklers. Tr. of Oral Arg. 61, 93–
94; Brief for Respondent Offcial Committee of Unsecured
Creditors of Purdue Pharma L. P. et al. 10. Why did the
releases make sense for the victims and creditors?
For starters, the releases were part of the settlement and
enabled the Sacklers' $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment.
Moreover, without the releases, some of Purdue's victims and
creditors—maybe a State, maybe some opioid victims—
would sue the Sacklers directly for claims “deeply connected
with, if not entirely identical to,” claims that the victims and
creditors held against Purdue. 635 B. R., at 87 (quotation
marks omitted). To be sure, the Bankruptcy Court found
that those suits would face signifcant challenges. But the
victims and creditors were understandably worried, as they
explained during the Bankruptcy Court proceedings, that
the Sacklers would “exhaust their collectible assets fghting
and/or paying ONLY the claims of certain creditors with the
best ability to pursue the Sacklers in court.” 1 App. 76.
And if even a single direct suit against the Sacklers suc-
ceeded, the suit could potentially wipe out much if not all of
the Sacklers' assets in one fell swoop—making those assets
any of the Sacklers were (and remain) far from certain—and in any event
would produce recoveries for only a few and leave other victims with
nothing.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
253
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
unavailable for the Purdue estate and therefore unavailable
for
all of the other victims and creditors.
In sum, if there were no releases, and victims and credi-
tors were therefore free to sue the Sacklers directly, one of
three things would likely happen. One possibility is that no
lawsuits against the Sacklers would succeed, and no victim
or creditor would recover any money from them. And with-
out the $5.5 to $6 billion settlement payment, there would be
no recovery from Purdue either. Another possibility is that
a large claim or claims would succeed, and the Sacklers
would be indemnifed by Purdue—thereby wiping out Pur-
due's estate for all of the other victims and creditors. Last,
suppose that a large claim succeeded and that the Sacklers
were not indemnifed for that liability. Even in that case,
only a few victims or creditors would be able to recover from
the Sacklers at the expense of fair and equitable distribution
to the rest of the victims and creditors.
As the Second Circuit stated, without the releases, the vic-
tims and creditors “would go without any assistance and face
an uphill battle of litigation (in which a single claimant might
disproportionately recover) without fair distribution.” 69
F. 4th, at 80. Another classic collective-action problem.
In short, without the releases and the signifcant settle-
ment payment, two separate collective-action problems stood
in the way of fair and equitable recovery for the victims and
creditors: (1) the Purdue estate would not be preserved for
the victims and creditors to obtain recovery, and (2) the Pur-
due estate would be much smaller than it would be with the
Sacklers' settlement payment. The releases and settlement
payment solved those problems and ensured fair and equita-
ble recovery for the opioid victims.
C
For those reasons, the Bankruptcy Court found that with-
out the releases and settlement payment, the reorganization
plan would “unravel.” 633 B. R., at 107, 109. All of the

254 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
“heavily negotiated and intricately woven compromises in
the
plan” that won the victims' and creditors' approval, id.,
at 90, would “fall apart for lack of funding and the inevitable
fghting over a far smaller and less certain recovery with
its renewed focus on pursuing individual claims and races to
collection.” Id., at 84. There simply would not be enough
money to support a reorganization plan that the victims and
creditors would approve.
Absent the releases and settlement payment, the Bank-
ruptcy Court found, the “most likely result” would be liqui-
dation of a much smaller $1.8 billion estate. Id., at 90. In
a liquidation, the United States would recover frst with its
$2 billion superpriority claim, taking for itself the whole pie.
And the victims and other creditors “would probably recover
nothing.” Id., at 109.
Given that alternative, it is hardly surprising that the opi-
oid victims and creditors almost universally support Pur-
due's Chapter 11 reorganization plan and the non-debtor re-
leases. That plan promised to obtain signifcant assets from
the Sacklers, to preserve those assets from being depleted
by litigation for a few, and to distribute those much-needed
funds fairly and equitably.
As a result, the opioid victims' and creditors' support for
the reorganization plan was overwhelming. Every victim
and creditor had a chance to vote on the plan during the
bankruptcy proceedings. And of those who voted, more
than 95 percent approved of the plan. Id., at 107.
Since then, even more victims and creditors have gotten
on board. Now, all 50 States have signed on to the plan.
The lineup before this Court is telling. On one side of the
case: the tens of thousands of opioid victims and their fami-
lies; more than 4,000 state, city, county, tribal, and local gov-
ernment entities; and more than 40,000 hospitals and health-
care organizations. They all urge the Court to uphold the
plan.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
255
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
At this point, on the other side of this case stand only a
sole
individual and a small group of Canadian creditors.
4
Given all of the extraordinary circumstances, the Bank-
ruptcy Court and Second Circuit concluded that the non-
debtor releases here not only were appropriate, but were
essential to the success of the plan. The Bankruptcy Court
and Second Circuit thoroughly analyzed each of the relevant
factors before reaching that conclusion: First, the released
non-debtors (the Sacklers) closely controlled and were in-
demnifed by the company. 69 F. 4th, at 79. Second, the
claims against the Sacklers were based on essentially the
same facts and legal theories as the claims against Pur-
due. Id., at 80. Third, the releases were essential for the
reorganization to succeed, because the releases protected
the Purdue estate from indemnifcation claims and expanded
the Purdue estate to enable victim and creditor recovery.
Id., at 80–81. Fourth, the releases were narrowly tailored
to protect the estate from indemnifcation claims. Ibid.
Fifth, the releases secured a substantial settlement payment
to signifcantly increase the funds in the estate. Id., at 81.
Sixth, that enhanced estate allowed the plan to distribute
“fair and equitable” payments to the victims and creditors.
Id., at 82 (quotation marks omitted). And seventh, for all
those reasons, the victims and creditors do not just urgently
and overwhelmingly approve of the releases, they all but de-
manded the releases. Ibid.
Congress invited bankruptcy courts to consider exactly
those kinds of extraordinary circumstances when it author-
4
The regional United States Trustee for three States, a Government
bankruptcy watchdog appointed to oversee bankruptcy cases in those
States, also opposes the plan for reasons that remain mystifying. The
U. S. Trustee purports to look out for victims and creditors, but here the
victims and creditors made emphatically clear that the “U. S. Trustee does
not speak for the victims of the opioid crisis” and is indeed thwarting the
opioid victims' efforts at fair and equitable recovery. Tr. of Oral Arg. 93.
Page Proof Pending Publication

256 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
ized bankruptcy plans to include “any other appropriate
p
rov isi on” that is “ not i nconsistent” w ith the Code.
§ 1123(b)(6).
III
The Court decides today to reject the plan by holding that
non-debtor releases are categorically impermissible as a mat-
ter of law. That decision contravenes the Bankruptcy Code.
It is regrettable for the opioid victims and creditors, and for
the heavily negotiated equitable distribution of assets that
they overwhelmingly support. And it will harm victims in
pending and future mass-tort bankruptcies. The Court's de-
cision deprives the bankruptcy system of a longstanding and
critical tool that has been used repeatedly to ensure fair and
sizable recovery for victims—to repeat, recovery for vic-
tims—in mass torts ranging from Dalkon Shield to the Boy
Scouts.
On the law, the Court's decision to reject the plan fatly
contradicts the Bankruptcy Code. The Code explicitly grants
broad discretion and fexibility for bankruptcy courts to han-
dle bankruptcies of extraordinary complexity like this one.
For several decades, bankruptcy courts have been employing
non-debtor releases to facilitate fair and equitable recovery
for victims in mass-tort bankruptcies. In this case, too, the
Bankruptcy Court prudently and appropriately employed its
discretion to fairly resolve a mass-tort bankruptcy.
At times, the Court seems to view the Sacklers' settlement
payment into Purdue's bankruptcy estate as insuffcient and
the plan as therefore unfair to victims and creditors. If that
were true, one might expect the fght in this case to be over
whether the non-debtor releases and settlement amount
were “appropriate” given the facts and circumstances of this
case. 11 U. S. C. § 1123(b)(6).
Yet that is not the path the Court takes. The Court does
not contest the Bankruptcy Court's and Second Circuit's con-
clusion that a non-debtor release was necessary and appro-
priate for the settlement and the success of Purdue's reorga-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
257
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
nization—the best, and perhaps the only, chance for victims
and
creditors to receive fair and equitable compensation.
Indeed, no party has challenged the Bankruptcy Court's fac-
tual fndings or made an argument that non-debtor releases
were used inappropriately in this specifc case.
Instead, the Court categorically decides that non-debtor
releases are never allowed as a matter of law. The text
of the Bankruptcy Code does not remotely support that
categorical prohibition.
5
As explained, § 1123(b)(6)'s catchall authority affords bank-
ruptcy courts broad discretion to approve “any other ap-
propriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable pro-
visions” of the Bankruptcy Code. Recall that § 1123(b)(1)
expressly author izes releases of victims' and creditors'
claims against the debtor company—here, against Purdue.
And recall that § 1123(b)(3) expressly authorizes settlements
and releases of the debtor company's claims against non-
5
To remind the reader of § 1123(b)'s lengthy text: A “plan may—
“(1) impair or leave unimpaired any class of claims, secured or unse-
cured, or of interests;
“(2) subject to section 365 of this title, provide for the assumption,
rejection, or assignment of any executory contract or unexpired lease
of the debtor not previously rejected under such section;
“(3) provide for—
“(A) the settlement or adjustment of any claim or interest belonging
to the debtor or to the estate; or
“(B) the retention and enforcement by the debtor, by the trustee, or
by a representative of the estate appointed for such purpose, of any
such claim or interest;
“(4) provide for the sale of all or substantially all of the property of
the estate, and the distribution of the proceeds of such sale among hold-
ers of claims or interests;
“(5) modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim
secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's
principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaf-
fected the rights of holders of any class of claims; and
“(6) include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the
applicable provisions of this title.”
Page Proof Pending Publication

258 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
debtors—here, against the Sacklers. Section 1123(b)(6)'s
catcha
ll authority is easily broad enough to allow settlements
and releases of the same v ic ti ms' and creditors' clai ms
against the same non-debtors (the Sacklers), who are indem-
nifed by the debtor and who made a large settlement pay-
ment to the debtor's estate. After all, the Second Circuit
stated that in indemnifcation relationships “a suit against
the non-debtor is, in essence, a suit against the debtor.”
In re Purdue Pharma L. P., 69 F. 4th 45, 78 (2023) (quotation
marks omitted). And even when the offcers and directors
are not indemnifed, the releases may enable a settlement
where the non-debtor makes a sizable payment to the estate
that can be fairly and equitably distributed to the victims
and creditors, rather than being zeroed out by the frst suc-
cessful suit.
A
So how does the Court reach its atextual and ahistorical
conclusion? The Court primarily seizes on the canon of
ejusdem generis, an interpretive principle that “limits gen-
eral terms that follow specifc ones to matters similar to
those specifed.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of
Revenue, 562 U. S. 277, 294 (2011) (quotation marks and al-
teration omitted). But the Court's use of that canon here is
entirely misguided.
The ejusdem generis canon “applies when a drafter has
tacked on a catchall phrase at the end of an enumeration of
specifcs, as in dogs, cats, horses, cattle, and other animals.”
A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law 199 (2012); see also id.,
at 200–208 (“trays, glasses, dishes, or other tableware”;
“gravel, sand, earth or other material”; and numerous other
similar lists (quotation marks omitted)); W. Eskridge, Inter-
preting Law 77 (2016) (“automobiles, motorcycles, and other
mechanisms for conveying persons or things” (quotation
marks omitted)).
As a general matter, as Justice Scalia explained for the
Court, a catchall at the end of the list should be construed
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
259
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
to cover “matters not specifcally contemplated—known un-
knowns.
” Republic of Iraq v. Beaty, 556 U. S. 848, 860
(2009). That is the “whole value of a generally phrased re-
sidual clause.” Ibid. Or stated otherwise, the fact that “a
statute can be applied in situations not expressly anticipated
by Congress does not demonstrate ambiguity. It demon-
strates breadth.” Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v.
Yeskey, 524 U. S. 206, 212 (1998) (quotation marks omitted).
The ejusdem generis canon can operate to narrow a broad
catchall term in certain circumstances. The canon “parallels
common usage,” refecting the assumption that when “the
initial terms all belong to an obvious and readily identifable
genus, one presumes that the speaker or writer has that cat-
egory in mind for the entire passage.” Scalia & Garner,
Reading Law, at 199. The canon in essence “implies the ad-
dition” of the term “similar” in the catchall so that the catch-
all does not extend so broadly as to defy common sense.
Ibid. Rather, the catchall extends to similar things or ac-
tions that serve the same statutory “purpose.” Id., at 208.
Here, the Court applies the canon to breezily conclude that
there is an “obvious link” through §§ 1123(b)(1)–(5) that pre-
cludes a non-debtor release provision being approved under
§ 1123(b)(6). Ante, at 218. The obvious link, according to
the Court, is that plan provisions must “concern the debtor—
its rights and responsibilities, and its relationship with its
creditors.” Ibid.
As an initial matter, the Court does not explain why its
supposed common thread excludes the non-debtor releases
at issue here. Those releases obv i ously “concer n” the
debtor in multiple overlapping respects. Ibid. As ex-
plained, Purdue's bankruptcy plan released the Sacklers only
for claims based on the debtor's (Purdue's) misconduct. See
69 F. 4th, at 80 (releasing only claims to which Purdue's con-
duct was “a legal cause or a legally relevant factor to the
cause of action” (quotation marks omitted)). The releases
therefore applied only to claims held by the debtor's victims

Page Proof Pending Publication
260 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
and creditors. And the releases protected the debtor from
i
ndemnifcation claims. So the non-debtor releases here did
not just “concern” the debtor, they were critical to the debt-
or's reorganization.
So the Court's purported “link” manages the rare feat of
being so vague (“concerns the debtor”?) as to be almost
meaningless—and if not meaningless, so broad as to plainly
cover non-debtor releases. It is hard to conjure up a weaker
ejusdem generis argument than the one put forth by the
Court today.
In any event, even on its own terms, the Court's ejusdem
generis argument is dead wrong for two independent rea-
sons. First, the Court's purported common thread is factu-
ally incorrect as a description of (b)(1) to (b)(5). Second, and
independent of the frst point, black-letter law says that the
ejusdem generis canon requires looking at the “evident pur-
pose” of the statute in order to discern a common thread.
Scalia & Garner, Reading Law, at 208; see Eskridge, Inter-
preting Law, at 78. And here, the Court's purported com-
mon thread ignores (and indeed guts) the evident purpose
of § 1123(b).
First, the Court's purported common thread is factually
incorrect. The Court says that the “obvious link” through
paragraphs (b)(1) to (b)(5) is that all are limited to “the
debtor—its rights and responsibilities, and its relationship
with its creditors.” Ante, at 218. But in multiple respects,
that assertion is not accurate.
For one thing, paragraph (b)(3) allows a bankruptcy court
to modify the rights of debtors with respect to non-debtors.
Under (b)(3), a bankruptcy court may approve a reorganiza-
tion plan that settles, adjusts, or enforces “any claim” that
the debtor holds against non-debtor third parties. That pro-
vision allows the debtor's estate to enter into a settlement
agreement with a third party, where the estate agrees to
release its claims against the third party in exchange for
a settlement payment to the bankruptcy estate. And the
bankruptcy court has the power to approve such a settle-

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
261
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
ment if it fnds the settlement fair and in the best inter-
ests
of the estate. The bankruptcy court may later enforce
that settlement. See generally 7 Collier on Bankruptcy
¶1123.02[3] (R. Levin & H. Sommer eds., 16th ed. 2023).
Importantly, in some cases, including this one, the debtor's
creditors may hold derivative claims against that same non-
debtor third party for the same “harm done to the estate.”
69 F. 4th, at 70 (quotation marks omitted). So when the
debtor settles with the non-debtor third party, that set-
tlement also extinguishes the creditors' derivative claims
against the non-debtor. And the creditors' consent is not
necessary to do so.
To connect the dots: A plan provision settling the debtor's
claims against non-debtors under (b)(3) therefore noncon-
sensually extinguishes creditors' derivative claims against
those non-debtors. That fact alone defeats the Court's con-
clusion that §§ 1123(b)(1)–(5) deal only with relations be-
tween the debtor and creditors. If a plan provision under
(b)(3) can nonconsensually release some of the creditors' de-
rivative claims against a non-debtor, a plan provision under
the catchall in (b)(6) that nonconsensually releases some of
the creditors' direct claims against those same non-debtors
is easily of a piece—basically the same thing.
This case illustrates the point. Some of the more sub-
stantial assets of Purdue's estate are fraudulent transfer
claims worth $11 billion that Purdue holds against the non-
debtor Sacklers. In re Purdue Pharma L. P., 633 B. R. 53,
87 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 2021). Under (b)(3), as part of its
reorganization plan, Purdue settled the fraudulent transfer
claims w ith the non-debtor Sacklers. The Bankruptcy
Court approved that settlement as fair and equitable. Id.,
at 83–95. That settlement resolved the claims that likely
would have had “the best chance of material success among
all of the claims against” the Sacklers. Id., at 109; see also
id., at 83.
Notably, the result of that settlement was to also noncon-
sensually extinguish the victims' and creditors' derivative
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
262 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
fraudulent transfer claims against the Sacklers. In the ab-
sence
of the bankruptcy proceeding, victims and creditors
could have litigated the fraudulent transfer claims them-
selves as derivative claims. But because Purdue settled the
claims under § 1123(b)(3), the victims and creditors could no
longer do so.
Moreover, not all victims and creditors consented to the
release of those derivative claims. But no one disputes that
the Bankruptcy Code authorized that nonconsensual non-
debtor release of derivative claims. See 69 F. 4th, at 70
(that conclusion is “well-settled”).
The plan therefore released both the estate's claims
against the Sacklers and highly valuable derivative claims
that the victims and creditors held against the Sacklers.
Paragraph ( b)(3) therefore demonstrates that § 1123( b)
reaches beyond just creditor-debtor relationships, particu-
larly when the relationship between creditors and other non-
debtors can affect the estate. That indisputable point alone
defeats the Court's conclusion that § 1123(b)'s provisions re-
late only to the debtor and do not allow releases of claims
that victims and creditors hold against non-debtors.
The Court tries to sidestep that conclusion by distinguish-
ing derivative claims from direct claims. Releases of deriv-
ative claims, the Court says, are authorized by paragraph
(b)(3) “because those claims belong to the debtor's estate.”
Ante, at 219. No doubt. But the question then becomes
whether releases of direct claims under (b)(6)'s catchall are
relevantly similar to releases of derivative claims that all
agree are authorized under (b)(3). The answer in this case
is yes. Here, both the derivative and direct claims against
the Sacklers are held by the same victims and creditors, and
both the derivative and direct claims against the Sacklers
could deplete Purdue's estate.
The Court's purported common thread is further contra-
dicted by several other kinds of non-debtor releases that “are
commonplace, important to the bankruptcy system, and
broadly accepted by the courts and practitioners as neces-

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
263
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
sary and proper” plan provisions under § 1123(b)(6). Brief
for
American College of Bankruptcy as Amicus Curiae 3.
Three examples illustrate the point: consensual non-debtor
releases, full-satisfaction non-debtor releases, and exculpa-
tion clauses.
Consensual non-debtor releases are routinely included in
bankruptcy plans even though those releases apply to claims
by victims or creditors against non-debtors—just like the
claims here. And it is “well-settled that a bankruptcy court
may approve” such consensual releases. 69 F. 4th, at 70; see
also Brief for American College of Bankruptcy as Amicus
Curiae 5–7.
Consensual releases are uncontroversial, but they are not
expressly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code. So the only
provision that could possibly supply authority to include
those releases in the bankr uptcy plan is the catcha ll in
§ 1123(b)(6).
The Court today does not deny that consensual releases
are routine in the bankruptcy context and that courts have
long approved them. See ante, at 225–227. But where, on
the Court's reading of the Bankruptcy Code, would the bank-
ruptcy court obtain the authority to enter and later enforce
that consensual release?
One suggestion is that the authority comes from the par-
ties' consent and is akin to a “contractual agreement.” Tr.
of Oral Arg. 33–34. But that theory does not explain what
provision of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes consensual re-
leases in bankruptcy plans. After all, contracts are en-
forceable under state law, ordinarily in state courts. But
in bankruptcy, consensual releases are routinely part of a
reorganization plan with voting overseen by the bankruptcy
court and conditions enforceable by the bankruptcy court.
See Brief for American College of Bankruptcy as Amicus
Curiae 4–7.
To reiterate, the only provision that could provide such
authority is § 1123(b)(6). So if the Court thinks that a con-
sensual release can be part of the plan, even the Court must

264 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
acknowledge that § 1123(b)(6) can reach creditors' claims
agai
nst non-debtors.
The Court's purported common thread is still further con-
tradicted by yet another regular bankruptcy practice: full-
satisfaction releases. Full-satisfaction releases provide full
payment for creditors' claims against non-debtors and then
release those claims. When a full-satisfaction release
is included in a reorganization plan, the bankruptcy court
exercises control over creditors' claims against non-debtors.
Again, the only provision that could possibly supply au-
thority to include those full-satisfaction releases in a bank-
ruptcy plan is the catchall in § 1123(b)(6). Any contract-
law theory would not work for full-satisfaction releases,
given that holdout creditors often refuse to consent to full-
satisfaction releases. See, e. g., In re A. H. Robins Co., 880
F. 2d 694, 696, 700, 702 (CA4 1989); In re Boy Scouts of Am.
and Del. BSA, LLC, 650 B. R. 87, 115–116, 141 (Del. 2023).
So if full-satisfaction releases are to be allowed, § 1123(b)(6)
must be read to reach creditor claims against non-debtors,
even without consent.
The Court does not deny that consensual non-debtor re-
leases and full-satisfaction releases might be permissible
under § 1123(b)(6). Ante, at 226–227. If they are permissi-
ble, then the Court's purported ejusdem generis common
thread is thoroughly eviscerated because those releases in-
volve claims by victims or creditors against non-debtors, just
like here. (And if the Court instead means to hold open the
possibility that consensual and full-satisfaction releases are
actually impermissible, then its holding today is even more
extreme than it appears.)
Exculpation clauses are yet another example. Excul-
pation clauses shield the estate's fduciaries and other pro-
fessionals (non-debtors) from liability for their work on the
reorganization plan. See Brief for American College of
Bankruptcy as Amicus Curiae 9. Without such exculpation
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
265
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
clauses, “competent professionals would be deterred from
engag
ing in the bankruptcy process, which would undermine
the main purpose of chapter 11—achieving a successful re-
structuring.” Id., at 11; see also Brief for Highland Capital
Management, L. P. as Amicus Curiae 3–5. For that reason,
bankruptcy courts routinely approve exculpation clauses
under § 1123(b)(6). For exculpation clauses to be allowed,
however, § 1123(b)(6) must be read to reach creditor claims
against non-debtors. So exculpation clauses further refute
the Court's purported common thread.
The fact that plan provisions under § 1123(b)(6) can reach
non-debtors fnds still more support in this Court's only
case to analyze the catchall authority in § 1123(b)(6), United
States v. Energy Resources Co. The plan provision in En-
ergy Resources ordered the IRS, a creditor, to apply the
debtor's tax payments to trust-fund tax liability before other
kinds of tax liability. United States v. Energy Resources
Co., 495 U. S. 545, 547 (1990). Importantly, if the debtor did
not pay the trust-fund tax liability, then non-debtor offcers
of the company would be on the hook. Ibid. So the plan
provision served to protect the company's non-debtor offcers
from “personal liability” for those taxes. In re Energy Re-
sources Co., 59 B. R. 702, 704 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Mass. 1986). In
exchange for that protection, a non-debtor offcer contributed
funds to the bankruptcy plan. Ibid.
Echoing the Court today, the IRS objected to that plan,
arguing that the bankruptcy court exceeded its authority
under (b)(6) in part because there was no provision in the
Code that expressly supported the plan provision. Energy
Resources, 495 U. S., at 549–550. But this Court disagreed
with the IRS and approved the plan based on the “residual
authority” in (b)(6). Id., at 549.
The plan provision in Energy Resources operated akin to
a non-debtor release: It reduced the potential liability of a
non-debtor (the non-debtor's offcers) to another non-debtor

266 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
(the IRS). Energy Resources therefore further demon-
strates
that plan provisions under § 1123(b)(6) can affect
creditor–non-debtor relationships.
In sum, the Court's statement that § 1123(b) reaches only
“the debtor—its rights and responsibilities, and its relation-
ship with its creditors,” ante, at 218, is factually incorrect
several times over. Paragraphs 1123(b)(3) and (b)(6) already
allow plans to affect creditor claims against non-debtors,
such as through releases of creditors' derivative claims, con-
sensual releases, full-satisfaction releases, and exculpation
clauses. And this Court's precedent in Energy Resources
confrms the point. The Court's ejusdem generis argument
rests on quicksand.
Second, independent of those many faws, the Court's en-
tire approach to ejusdem generis is wrong from the get-go.
When courts face a statute with a catchall, it is black-letter
law that courts must try to discern the common thread by
examining the “evident purpose” of the statute. Scalia &
Garner, Reading Law, at 208; see also Begay v. United
States, 553 U. S. 137, 146 (2008) (defning common thread “in
terms of the Act's basic purposes”); Eskridge, Interpreting
Law, at 78 (“statutory purpose” helps identify the common
thread in ejusdem generis cases).
6
Importantly, this Court has already explained that the
purpose of § 1123(b) is to grant bankruptcy courts “broad
power” to approve plan provisions “necessary for a reorgani-
6
The Court protests that we are looking to the “purpose” of the statute.
But in ejusdem generis cases, courts are required to look at “purpose” in
order to determine the common link, as Scalia and Garner and Eskridge
all say, and as Begay indicated. That is longstanding black-letter law.
And even outside the ejusdem generis context, the Court's allergy to the
word “purpose” is strange. After all, “words are given meaning by their
context, and context includes the purpose of the text. The difference be-
tween textualist interpretation” and “purposive interpretation is not that
the former never considers purpose. It almost always does,” but “the
purpose must be derived from the text.” A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading
Law 56 (2012).
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
267
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
zation's success.” Energy Resources, 495 U. S., at 551. En-
e
rgy Resources demonstrates that the common thread of
§ 1123(b) is bankruptcy court action to preserve the estate
and ensure fair and equitable recovery for creditors. See,
e. g., Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associ-
ates L. P., 507 U. S. 380, 389 (1993); NLRB v. Bildisco &
Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 528 (1984); J. Feeney & M. Stepan, 2
Bankruptcy Law Manual § 11:1 (5th ed. 2023).
As explained at length above, to maximize recovery, the
Court must solve complex collective-action problems. And
for a bankruptcy court to solve all of the relevant collective-
action problems, §§ 1123(b)(1)–(5) give the bankruptcy court
broad power to modify parties' rights without their con-
sent—most notably, to release creditors' claims against the
debtor. § 1123(b)(1). Under that provision, the Purdue
plan released the victims' and creditors' claims against
Purdue in order to prevent a collective-action problem in
distributing Purdue's assets—and thereby to preserve the
estate and ensure fair and equitable recovery for victims
and creditors.
The non-debtor release prov isi on approved under
§ 1123(b)(6) does the same thing and serves that same statu-
tory purpose. As discussed above, the victims' and credi-
tors' claims against the non-debtor Purdue offcers and direc-
tors (the Sacklers) are essentially the same as their claims
against Purdue. The claims against the Sacklers rest on the
same legal theories and facts as the claims against Purdue,
largely the Sacklers' opioid-related decisions in running Pur-
due. And the Sacklers are indemnifed by Purdue's estate
for their liability. So any liability could potentially come out
of the Purdue estate just like the claims against Purdue
itself.
Therefore, the nonconsensual releases against the Sacklers
are not only of a similar genus, but in effect the same thing
as the nonconsensual releases against Purdue that everyone
agrees § 1123(b)(1) already authorizes. Both were necessary
Page Proof Pending Publication

268 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
to preserve the estate and prevent collective-action problems
that
could drain Purdue's estate, and thus both were neces-
sary to enable Purdue's reorganization plan to succeed and to
equitably distribute assets. And without the releases, there
would be no settlement, meaning no $5.5 to $6 billion pay-
ment by the Sacklers to Purdue's estate. That would mean
either that no victim or creditor could recover anything from
the Sacklers (or indeed from Purdue), or that only a few vic-
tims or creditors could recover from the Sacklers at the ex-
pense of fair and equitable distribution to everyone else.
The statute's evident purpose therefore easily answers the
ejusdem generis inquiry here. Absent other limitations and
restrictions in the Code, § 1123(b)(6) authorizes a bankruptcy
court to modify parties' claims that could otherwise threaten
to deplete the bankruptcy estate when doing so is necessary
to preserve the estate and provide fair and equitable recov-
ery for creditors.
In light of the “evident purpose” of § 1123(b) to preserve
the estate and ensure fair and equitable recovery for credi-
tors in the face of collective-action problems, Scalia & Gar-
ner, Reading Law, at 208; see Eskridge, Interpreting Law,
at 78, the Court's ejusdem generis theory simply falls apart.
In sum, for each of two independent reasons, the Court's
ejusdem generis argument fails. First, its common thread is
factually wrong. And second, its purported common thread
disregards the evident purpose of § 1123(b).
B
Despite the fact that non-debtor releases address the very
collective-action problem that the bankruptcy system was
designed to solve, the Court next trots out a few minimally
explained arguments that non-debtor release provisions are
“inconsistent with” various provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code, including: (i) § 524(g)'s authorization of non-debtor re-
leases in asbestos cases; (ii) § 524(e)'s statement that debtors'
discharges do not automatically affect others' liabilities; and
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
269
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
( i i i) the Code's var i ous restr icti ons on bankr uptcy dis-
charges.
None of those arguments is persuasive.
First, the Court cites § 524(g), which was enacted in 1994
to expressly authorize non-debtor releases in a specifc con-
text: cases involving mass harm “caused by the presence of,
or exposure to, asbestos or asbestos-containing products.”
§ 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(I). From the fact that § 524(g) allows non-
debtor releases in the asbestos context, the Court infers that
non-debtor releases are prohibited in other contexts. Ante,
at 222.
But the very text of § 524(g) expressly precludes the
Court's inference. The statute says: “Nothing in [§ 524(g)]
shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede any other
authority the court has to issue injunctions in connection
with an order confrming a plan of reorganization.” 108
Stat. 4117, note following 11 U. S. C. § 524. Congress ex-
pressly authorized non-debtor releases in one specifc context
that was critically urgent in 1994 when it was enacted. But
Congress also enacted the corresponding rule of construction
into binding statutory text to “make clear” that § 524(g) did
not “alter” the bankruptcy courts' ability to use non-debtor
release mechanisms as appropriate in other cases. 140
Cong. Rec. 27692 (1994).
Keep in mind that Congress enacted § 524(g) in the early
days of non-debtor releases, soon after bankruptcy courts
began approving non-debtor releases in asbestos cases.
See, e. g., In re Johns-Manville Corp., 68 B. R. 618, 621–622
(Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 1986), aff'd, 837 F. 2d 89, 90 (CA2 1988);
UNARCO Bloomington Factory Workers v. UNR Indus-
tries, Inc., 124 B. R. 268, 272, 278–279 (ND Ill. 1990). Sec-
tion 524(g) set forth a detailed scheme sensitive to the spe-
cifc needs of asbestos mass-tort litigation that was then
engulfng and overwhelming American courts. For exam-
ple, because asbestos injuries often have a long latency pe-
riod, asbestos mass-tort bankruptcies needed to account for
unknown claimants who could come out of the woodwork in
Page Proof Pending Publication

270 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
the future. See Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, 108 Stat.
4114
–4116; In re Johns-Manville Corp., 68 B. R., at 627–
629.
But as explained above, throughout the history of the Code
and at the time § 524(g) was enacted, bankruptcy courts were
also issuing non-debtor releases in other contexts as well,
such as in the Dalkon Shield mass-tort bankruptcy case.
A. H. Robins Co., 880 F. 2d, at 700–702; see also, e. g., In re
Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 960 F. 2d 285, 293
(CA2 1992) (securities litigation context). Congress there-
fore made clear that enacting § 524(g) for the urgent asbestos
cases did not disturb bankruptcy courts' preexisting author-
ity to issue such releases in other cases.
Bottom line: The Court's reliance on § 524(g) directly con-
travenes the actual statutory text.
Second, the Court cites § 524(e), which states that a plan's
discharge of the debtor “does not affect the liability of any
other entity on . . . such debt.” By its terms, § 524(e) does
not purport to preclude releases of creditors' claims against
non-debtors. (And were the rule otherwise, even consen-
sual releases would be prohibited as well.)
Notably, Congress changed § 524(e) to its current wording
in 1979. Before 1979, the statute arguably did preclude re-
leases of claims against non-debtors who were co-debtors
with a bankrupt company. See 11 U. S. C. § 34 (1976 ed.)
(repealed Oct. 1, 1979) (“The liability of a person who is a co-
debtor with, or guarantor or in any manner a surety for, a
bankrupt shall not be altered by the discharge of such bank-
rupt” (emphasis added)). But Congress then changed the
law. And the text now means only that the discharge of the
debtor does not itself automatically wipe away the liability
of a non-debtor. Section 524(e) does not speak to the issue
of non-debtor releases or other steps that a plan may take
regarding the liability of a non-debtor for the same debt.
As the American College of Bankruptcy says, “Section 524(e)
is agnostic as to third-party releases.” Brief for American
Page Proof Pending Publication

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
271
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
College of Bankruptcy as Amicus Curiae 6, n. 3; see also
In
re Airadigm Communications, Inc., 519 F. 3d 640, 656
(CA7 2008).
Third, citing §§ 523(a), 524(a), and 541(a), the Court says
that the plan improperly grants a “discharge” to the
Sacklers. Ante, at 211, 221–222. And the Court suggests
that giving the Sacklers a “discharge” in Purdue's bank-
ruptcy plan in exchange for $5.5 to $6 billion allows the
Sacklers to get away too easy—without fling for bankruptcy
themselves, without having to comply with the Code's vari-
ous restrictions, and without paying enough. See ante, at
221–222. That point also fails.
To begin, the premise is incorrect. The Sacklers did not
receive a bankruptcy discharge in this case. Discharge is a
term of art in the Bankruptcy Code. Wainer v. A. J. Equi-
ties, Ltd., 984 F. 2d 679, 684 (CA5 1993); J. Silverstein, Hiding
in Plain View: A Neglected Supreme Court Decision Re-
solves the Debate Over Non-Debtor Releases in Chapter 11
Reorganizations, 23 Emory Bkrtcy. Developments J. 13, 130
(2006). When a debtor in bankruptcy receives a discharge,
most (if not all) of their pre-petition debts are released, giv-
ing the debtor a fresh start. See § 1141(d)(1) (Chapter 11
discharge relieves the debtor “from any debt that arose be-
fore the date of ” plan confrmation, with narrow exceptions);
Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U. S. 554, 556, 558 (2019). The
Sacklers did not receive such a discharge.
As courts have always recognized, non-debtor releases are
different. Non-debtor releases “do not offer the umbrella
protection of a discharge in bankruptcy.” Johns-Manville
Corp., 837 F. 2d, at 91. Rather, non-debtor releases are ac-
companied by settlement payments to the estate by the non-
debtor. So non-debtor releases are simply one part of a set-
tlement of pending or potential claims against the non-debtor
that arise out of some torts committed by the debtor. They
are in essence a traditional litigation settlement. They are
not a blanket discharge for the non-debtor.
Page Proof Pending Publication

272 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
Here, therefore, the releases apply only to certain claims
agai
nst the Sacklers—namely, those “that arise out of or
relate to” Purdue's bankruptcy. Ibid.; see 69 F. 4th, at 80
(releasing the Sacklers only for claims to which Purdue's con-
duct was “a legal cause or a legally relevant factor to the
cause of action” (quotation marks omitted)). And the non-
debtor releases were negotiated in exchange for a signifcant
settlement payment that enabled Purdue's bankruptcy reor-
ganization to succeed.
In short, the releases do not grant discharges to non-
debtors and cannot be disallowed on that basis.
Next, the Court suggests that the Sacklers must fle for
bankruptcy themselves in order to be released from liability.
That, too, is incorrect. Nowhere does the Code say that a
non-debtor may be released from liability only by fling for
bankruptcy. On the contrary, § 1123(b)(3) of the Code al-
ready expressly allows a bankruptcy plan to release a non-
debtor from liability to the debtor.
The Court's suggestion that a non-debtor must fle for
bankruptcy in order to be released from liability not only
is directly at odds with the text of the Code, but also is at
odds with reality. Non-debtor releases are often used in sit-
uations where it is not possible or practicable for the non-
debtors to simply fle for individual bankruptcies. This case
is just one example. The “Sacklers are not a simple group
of a few defendants” that could simply have declared one
bankruptcy. 633 B. R., at 88. They are “a large family di-
vided into two sides, Side A and Side B, with eight pods or
groups of family members within those divisions,” many of
whom live abroad (beyond bankruptcy jurisdiction). Ibid.
And their assets are spread across trusts that are likely be-
yond the jurisdiction of U. S. courts as well. Ibid.; see also
id., at 109.
Likewise, in many other mass-tort bankruptcy cases, re-
leased non-parties could not simply declare their own bank-
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
273
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
ruptcies either. Insurers, for example, cannot declare bank-
r
uptcy just because a policy limit is reached. B. Zaretsky,
Insurance Proceeds in Bankruptcy, 55 Brooklyn L. Rev. 373,
394–395, and n. 60 (1989). And in cases involving hundreds
of affliated entities who share liability and share insurance,
such as the Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church, it would be
almost impossible to coordinate assets and ensure equitable
victim recovery across hundreds of distinct bankruptcies.
Section 1123(b)(6) provides bankruptcy courts with fexibil-
ity to deal with such situations by approving appropriate
non-debtor releases. See Brief for Boy Scouts of America
as Amicus Curiae 18–20; Brief for Ad Hoc Group of Local
Councils of the Boy Scouts of America as Amicus Curiae 6;
Brief for U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as Amicus Cu-
riae 3–4, 17–22.
The Court next says that the non-debtor release allowed
the Sacklers to bypass certain restrictions on discharges—
for example, that individual debtors are generally not dis-
charged for fraud claims, § 523(a). That argument fails for
the same reason. Non-debtor releases are part of a negoti-
ated settlement of potential tort claims. They are not a dis-
charge. And nothing in § 523(a) prohibits a debtor's reorga-
nization plan from releasing non-debtors for fraud claims.
Indeed, it is undisputed that Purdue's bankruptcy could re-
lease the Sacklers from at least some fraud claims—namely,
the fraudulent transfer claims—under § 1123(b)(3). No pro-
vision in the Code forbids releasing other fraud claims
against the Sacklers, too. The Court's concern that the
releases apply to claims for “fraud,” ante, at 222, therefore
falls fat.
In all of those scattershot arguments, the Court seems
concerned that the Sacklers' $5.5 to $6 billion settlement pay-
ment was not enough. To begin with, even if that were
true, it would not be a reason to categorically disallow non-
debtor releases as a matter of law, as the Court does today.

Page Proof Pending Publication
274 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
In any event, that concern is unsupported by the record and
contradic
ted by the Bankruptcy Court's undisputed fndings
of fact. The Bankruptcy Court found that the creditors' and
victims' ability to recover directly from any of the Sacklers
in tort litigation was far from certain. So as in other tort
settlements, the settlement amount here refected the par-
ties' assessments of their probabilities of success and the
likely amount of possible recovery. The Court today has no
good basis for its subtle second-guessing of the settlement
amount.
And lest we miss the forest for the trees, keep in mind
that the victims and creditors have no incentive to short
their own recoveries or to let the Sacklers off easy. They
despise the Sacklers. Yet they strongly support the plan.
They ca l l the settlement a “remarkable ach ievement. ”
Brief for Respondent Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of
Purdue Pharma, L. P. et al. 2. And given the high level of
victim and creditor support, the Bankruptcy Court empha-
sized: “[T]his is not the Sacklers' plan,” and “anyone who
contends to the contrary” is “simply misleading the public.”
633 B. R., at 82.
The Court today unfortunately falls into that trap. And
it is rather paternalistic for the Court to tell the victims that
they should have done better—and then to turn around and
leave them with potentially nothing.
C
Finally, the Court suggests that non-debtor releases are
not “appropriate” because they are inconsistent with history
and practice. That, too, is seriously mistaken.
Importantly, Congress did not enact the current Bank-
ruptcy Code—and with it, § 1123(b)(6)—until 1978. Bank-
ruptcy Code of 1978, 92 Stat. 2549. For nearly the entire
life of the Code, courts have approved non-debtor release
provisions like this one. So for decades, Chapter 11 of the
Code has been understood to grant authority for such re-

Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
275
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
leases when appropriate and necessary to the success of the
reorgani
zation.
7
The Court's citations to pre-Bankruptcy Code cases are
an off-point defection and do not account for important and
relevant changes made in the current Bankruptcy Code.
For example, unlike the former Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the
modern Bankruptcy Code grants courts jurisdiction over
“suits between third parties which have an effect on the
bankruptcy estate.” Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U. S.
300, 307, n. 5 (1995); see 28 U. S. C. §§ 157(a), 1334(b) (giving
bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over any litigation “related
to” the bankruptcy).
Under the current Bankruptcy Code, it is well settled that
Chapter 11 bankruptcies can and do affect relationships be-
tween creditors and non-debtors who are intimately related
to the bankruptcy. For example, under the modern Bank-
ruptcy Code, bankruptcy courts routinely use their broad ju-
risdiction and equitable powers to stay any litigation—even
litigation entirely between third parties—that would affect
the bankruptcy estate. Celotex, 514 U. S., at 308–310.
The longstanding practice of staying litigation that could
affect the bankruptcy estate is similar in important respects
to non-debtor releases. In each situation, a provision of the
Code provides an explicit authority: to stay litigation involv-
ing the debtor, § 362, and to release claims involving the
7
See, e. g., In re Johns-Manville Corp., 68 B. R. 618, 624–626 (Bkrtcy.
Ct. SDNY 1986), aff'd, 837 F. 2d 89, 90, 93–94 (CA2 1988); In re A. H.
Robins Co., 88 B. R. 742, 751 (ED Va. 1988), aff'd, 880 F. 2d 694, 700–702
(CA4 1989); UNARCO Bloomington Factory Workers v. UNR Industries,
Inc., 124 B. R. 268, 272, 278–279 (ND Ill. 1990); In re Drexel Burnham
Lambert Group, Inc., 960 F. 2d 285, 293 (CA2 1992); In re Master Mort-
gage Inv. Fund, Inc., 168 B. R. 930, 938 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Mo. 1994); In re
Dow Corning Corp., 280 F. 3d 648, 653 (CA6 2002); In re Airadigm Com-
munications, Inc., 519 F. 3d 640, 655–658 (CA7 2008); In re Seaside Engi-
neering & Surveying, Inc., 780 F. 3d 1070, 1081 (CA11 2015); In re Boy
Scouts of Am. and Del. BSA, LLC, 650 B. R. 87, 112, 135–143 (Del. 2023).
I could add dozens more citations to this footnote. But the point is clear.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
276 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
debtor, §§ 1123(b)(1), (3). And in each, the bankruptcy court
i
nvokes its broad jurisdiction and equitable power to “aug-
ment” that authority, extending it to litigation and claims
against non-debtors that might have a “direct and substan-
tial adverse effect” on the bankruptcy estate. Celotex, 514
U. S., at 303, 310.
In short, the common and long-accepted practice of stay-
ing litigation that could affect the bankruptcy estate shows
that under the modern Code, bankruptcy courts can and do
exercise control over relationships between creditors and
non-debtors. The Court's reliance on pre-Code practice is
misplaced.
8
IV
As I see it, today's decision makes little sense legally, prac-
tically, or economically. It upends the carefully negotiated
Purdue bankruptcy plan and the prompt and substantial re-
covery guaranteed to opioid victims and creditors. Now the
opioid victims and creditors are left holding the bag, with no
clear path forward. To reiterate the words of the victims:
“Without the release, the plan will unravel,” and “there
will be no viable path to any victim recovery.” Tr. of Oral
Arg. 100–101.
The Court does not say what should happen next. The
Court seems to hope that a new deal is possible, with the
Sacklers buying off the last holdouts.
But even if it were true that the parties could eventually
reach a new deal, that outcome would likely come at a cost.
Future negotiations and litigation would mean additional liti-
gation expense that eats away at the recovery that the opioid
victims and creditors have already negotiated, as well as
years of additional delay even though victims and family
members want and need relief now.
8
The Court insists that pre-Code practice “may inform our work.”
Ante, at 224, n. 6. But pre-Code practice certainly does not play a role
when that practice has been superseded by an express provision of the
modern Bankruptcy Code.

Page Proof Pending Publication
Cite
as: 603 U. S. 204 (2024)
277
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
And more to the point, without non-debtor releases, a new
dea
l will be very diffcult to achieve. By eliminating non-
consensual non-debtor releases, today's decision gives every
victim and every creditor an absolute right to sue the
Sacklers. Some may hold out from any potential future set-
tlement and instead sue because they want to have their day
in court to hold the defendants accountable, or because they
want to try to hit the jackpot of a large recovery that they
can keep all to themselves. Moreover, because every victim
and creditor knows that the Sacklers' resources are limited,
they will now have an incentive to promptly sue the Sacklers
before others sue. To be sure, the victims and creditors
would face an uphill climb in any such litigation, the Bank-
ruptcy Court found, so it may be that no one will succeed in
tort litigation against the Sacklers, meaning that no one will
get anything. But even if just one of the victims or credi-
tors—say, a State or a group of victims—is successful in a
suit against the Sacklers, its judgment “could wipe out all of
the collectible Sackler assets,” which in turn could also de-
plete Purdue's estate and leave nothing for any other victim
or creditor. Id., at 103–104. That reality means that every-
one has an incentive to race to the courthouse to sue the
Sacklers pronto—the classic collective-action problem.
Because some victims or creditors may hold out from any
potential future settlement for any one of those reasons and
instead still sue, the Sacklers are less likely to settle with
anyone in the frst place. Maybe the clouds will part. But
in a world where nonconsensual non-debtor releases are cat-
egorically impermissible, any hope for a new deal seems
questionable—indeed, the parties to the bankruptcy label it
“pure fantasy.” Brief for Debtor Respondents 4.
The bankruptcy system was designed to prevent that
exact sort of collective-action problem. Non-debtor releases
have been indispensable to solving that problem and ensur-
ing fair and equitable victim recovery in multiple bankruptcy
proceedings of extraordinary scale—not only opioids, but

278 HARRINGTON
v. PURDUE PHARMA L. P.
Kavanaugh, J., dissenting
also many other mass-tort cases involving asbestos, the Boy
Scouts,
the Catholic Church, silicone breast implants, the
Dalkon Shield, and others.
The Court's apparent concern that the Sacklers' settle-
ment payment of $5.5 to $6 billion was not enough should
have led at most to a remand on whether the releases were
“appropriate” under 11 U. S. C. § 1123(b)(6) (if anyone had
raised that argument here, which they have not). But in-
stead the Court responds with the dramatic step of repudiat-
ing the plan and eliminating non-debtor releases altogether.
The Court's decision today jettisons a carefully circum-
scribed and critically important tool that bankruptcy courts
have long used and continue to need to handle mass-tort
bankruptcies going forward. The text of the Bankruptcy
Code does not come close to requiring such a ruinous result.
Nor does its structure, context, or history. Nor does hostil-
ity to the Sacklers—no matter how deep: “Nothing is more
antithetical to the purpose of bankruptcy than destroying
estate value to punish someone.” A. Casey & J. Macey, In
Defense of Chapter 11 for Mass Torts, 90 U. Chi. L. Rev. 973,
1017 (2023). Gutting this longstanding bankruptcy court
practice is entirely counterproductive, and simply inficts
still more injury on the opioid victims.
Opioid victims and other future victims of mass torts will
suffer greatly in the wake of today's unfortunate and destabi-
lizing decision. Only Congress can fx the chaos that will
now ensue. The Court's decision will lead to too much harm
for too many people for Congress to sit by idly without at
least carefully studying the issue. I respectfully dissent.
Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication
Reporter’s Note
The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication
and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination
makes available the offcial United States Reports citation in advance of
publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions
for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of
the Court. A list of counsel who argued or fled briefs in this case, and
who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was
argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may
include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant
punctuation. The following additional edits were made:
p. 204, line 16: “Sackers” is replaced with “Sacklers”
p. 219, line 14 from bottom: “derivate” is replaced with “derivative”
p. 253, line 2: the second “the” is deleted