Abstract: In June 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma that nonconsensual releases for nondebtors are unconstitutional. The decision marked a key development in mass tort litigation involving Purdue Pharma, the company at the center of the opioid crisis. The Sackler family sought to use Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings to shield themselves from liability, but the Court’s ruling invalidated the use of nondebtor releases to protect third parties from claims without the full consent of affected parties. While the ruling strengthens creditor protections, it creates uncertainty regarding how mass tort bankruptcies can efficiently compensate victims, particularly in public health crises with long-term effects.
This Comment argues that Congress should expand section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, which currently only applies to asbestos-related claims, to include other mass torts. To address public health crises and enhance bankruptcy’s effectiveness, the framework should include a structured test to determine if a mass tort bankruptcy qualifies for section 524(g) protections. Examining the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the history of nondebtor releases, and asbestos bankruptcy precedents, this Comment advocates for a tailored legislative solution to ensure fair, long-term compensation for those harmed by entities like Purdue Pharma.
