Bite-Sized Business Law
Looking for the latest in legal business news?
Get a breakdown of the top stories in business law from industry leaders on the front lines with Bite-Sized Business Law. Host Amy Martella takes a closer look at the latest corporate happenings through interviews with the attorneys, legal experts, public figures, and scholars behind the news to distill business law’s biggest stories into bite-sized portions.
This is your chance to go further into the world of business law and stay up to date with legal cases and industry trends.
Corporations impact us all, leading changes that extend far beyond business to shape the economy, public policy, technology, and beyond. Looking at the big picture, Amy discusses not only the underlying issues in business ethics and legal cases leading the biggest stories but also sparks thought-provoking discussions on where the law should be headed.
Amy is the Executive Director of the Corporate Law Center at Fordham University School of Law. Her background ranges from big law to government to tech startups, allowing her to offer an insider’s perspective of the issues that shape corporate actions, large and small. Covering crypto regulation to securities fraud, AI’s impact to Elon Musk’s pay package, Bite-Sized Business Law covers it all with guests of varying viewpoints to provide the nuanced analysis needed to tackle complex problems.
Whether you're looking for the latest in legal insight on intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, business ethics or legal cases in the business law world, you’ll find it here. Enjoying a thoughtful perspective on the news stories of the moment, Bite-Sized Business Law examines big issues and delivers them in small doses.
Bite-Sized Business Law is a project by the Corporate Law Center at Fordham Law. The Center serves as a hub for scholars, professionals, policymakers, and students to engage in the study, discussion, and debate of current issues in corporate law. The Center focuses on aspects of corporate law, corporate compliance, antitrust law, and securities regulation. Through initiatives like the Mergers and Acquisitions seminar and the Securities Litigation and Arbitration Clinic, students actively engage in real-world research and cases, bridging the gap between classroom learning and practical application in the legal field.
Bite-Sized Business Law
Purdue Pharma II: The Sacklers Strike Out at SCOTUS
When the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated opinion in the Purdue Pharma case this June, decades of bankruptcy practice was called into question. The Court’s opinion removed a potent shield from the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, who many believe caused the opioid crisis, and it also clarified the fundamental limits of bankruptcy law. Today, we take another look at this groundbreaking case and all its implications as we are joined again by Brook Gotberg and Richard Squire. After a quick recap of the history of the Sacklers and OxyContin, we take a closer look at third-party releases, why they came to be, and how the Sackers are considered third parties even while deeply entrenched in the company. Then we explore voting statistics and the role of consent in bankruptcy settlements, the aftereffects of the Bankruptcy Court confirming Purdue’s plan, the Supreme Court’s decision on the merits including how Section 1123(b)(6) and other bankruptcy laws were interpreted, and the arguments set forth in Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent. We end with backdoor tort reform and try to understand the Supreme Court’s underlying agenda, and our guests detail possible legislative solutions as they share their visions of the future of bankruptcy law post Purdue Pharma.
Key Points From This Episode:
- A brief history of the Sackler family, OxyContin and the opioid crisis in America, and Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy filing.
- Understanding a third-party release; what it is and how it came about.
- How the Sacklers, founders and owners of Purdue Pharma, can still be considered third parties.
- Voting statistics and the role of consent in the Purdue Pharma case.
- Why some bankruptcy plans are given the green light even after multiple creditor objections.
- The state of affairs after the Bankruptcy Court confirmed Purdue Pharma’s plan.
- Defining the central holding of the Supreme Court case handed down in June 2024.
- Unpacking Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent and the merits thereof.
- Exploring how Section 1123(b)(6) and other bankruptcy laws were interpreted in this case.
- The future of bankruptcy law after Purdue Pharma.
- Backdoor tort reform implications and the Supreme Court’s underlying agenda.
- Whether bankruptcy is trying to colonize other areas of law.
- Possible legislative adjustments and solutions.
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
‘Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.’
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
‘Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy Basics’
Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center