--- title: "How did Purdue's 2025 plan settle the case, and who pays?" language: en canonical: https://dossiertwist.com/dossiers/purdue-pharma/settlement-and-knoa/ as_of: 2026-10-22 keywords: ["Purdue Pharma L.P.","Purdue Pharma Inc.","OxyContin","Sackler family","Richard Sackler","Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P.","Beacon Company","Rosebay Medical Company L.P.","The Purdue Frederick Company","Rhodes Pharmaceuticals","Chapter 11","Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.","third-party releases","Knoa Pharma","McKinsey & Company","opioid litigation","guilty plea","Master Disbursement Trust","shareholder settlement","Mundipharma"] --- # How did Purdue's 2025 plan settle the case, and who pays? **Question.** What did Purdue Pharma's 2025 bankruptcy plan settle, who owes the settlement payments, and how has the settlement been enforced? **Answer.** The Eighteenth Amended plan, confirmed on 18 November 2025, took effect on 1 May 2026: Purdue Pharma L.P. ceased operations and its business passed to Knoa Pharma. Named Sackler-side trusts, family members, estates and entities, not Purdue, owe the Master Disbursement Trust up to about $7 billion over fifteen years according to the Disclosure Statement and the Confirmation Order (up to $6.5 billion in other passages of the plan documents), settling the estates' claims and the direct claims of creditors who opted into the releases; the estates were projected to add about $927 million. In 2026 the Bankruptcy Court found that Richard Sackler and Lin Gao breached the Confirmation Order, the settlement agreement and a stipulation by filing state-court actions aimed at pledged trust assets. ## How the 2025 plan replaced the 2021 plan - Analysis: After the Supreme Court held on 27 June 2024, in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow a plan to release claims against non-debtors without the affected claimants' consent, the parties negotiated a new plan on remand. The debtors filed the Thirteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan (D.I. 7638) on 18 March 2025 and its proposed Disclosure Statement the next day; the Bankruptcy Court heard the Disclosure Statement on 18 June 2025, and the solicitation version of it is dated 1 July 2025. The plan was amended five more times before the Eighteenth Amended Plan (D.I. 8233) was confirmed. It kept the outline of the 2021 plan, which had already provided for a successor company to be named KNOA: according to the Disclosure Statement, Purdue Pharma L.P. would be dissolved on or immediately after the effective date, its businesses would pass to Knoa Pharma LLC, wholly owned by an independent foundation intended to qualify under IRC section 501(c)(4), and no government would own either. [src-040] [src-039] [src-020] [src-015] [src-003] [src-047] - Documented: On 27 June 2024 the Supreme Court of the United States, in Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124, reversed the Second Circuit's judgment (69 F.4th 45) and remanded. By five votes to four (Justice Gorsuch for the Court, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson) it held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. The Court called its decision narrow: it did not call into question consensual third-party releases, did not decide what qualifies as a consensual release or pass on a plan providing for full satisfaction of claims against a nondebtor, and, because the plan had been stayed, did not address whether its reading would justify unwinding plans already effective and substantially consummated. Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. The petitioner was U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington; the respondents were Purdue Pharma L.P. and others. [src-040] [src-039] [src-020] - Outcome: On remand the parties negotiated a new plan; on 18 November 2025 the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Eighteenth Amended plan, finding its third-party releases consensual and therefore compliant with Harrington, and the plan became effective on 1 May 2026. - Analysis: What changed is the settlement with the family. Under the 2025 Shareholder Settlements, as the debtors described them in the Disclosure Statement, the Sackler Parties are to pay up to approximately $7 billion over fifteen years, more than under the prior plan if all creditors grant the releases, to settle both the debtors' own claims against them and the direct claims of creditors who choose to settle; their main consideration is the plan's releases and injunctions. The debtors added that, in aggregate, as much as $8 billion in value could be available for creditors. Those creditor releases are voluntary: the Third-Party Releases bind only creditors who elect to grant them, and direct claims of creditors who do not are neither released nor compromised. The 'up to' amounts depend on how many creditors opt in, and the obligation lies with the Sackler-side payment parties, not with Purdue Pharma L.P. The Delaware Attorney General's office, announcing on 1 May 2026 that the $7.4 billion settlement had become effective, said it replaced the multistate agreement overturned in June 2024, which had provided up to $6 billion from the Sacklers and which the office credits in substantial part to the advocacy of the Attorney General and a handful of other states that had objected to the $4.5 billion Sackler contribution first approved by the Bankruptcy Court. The courts' figures for 2021 differ: a guaranteed $4.275 billion over nine years agreed in February 2021, raised to $4.325 billion in a further mediation in May and June 2021. [src-015] [src-006] [src-003] [src-044] [src-047] - Documented: The Delaware Attorney General announced on May 1, 2026 that the $7.4 billion settlement reached with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family had become legally effective and that fifty-five attorneys general had signed onto it. Her office stated that it replaced a prior multistate agreement, overturned by the United States Supreme Court in June 2024, that had included up to a $6 billion contribution from the Sacklers, an agreement the office credits in substantial part to the advocacy of the Attorney General and a handful of other states that had objected to the $4.5 billion Sackler contribution initially approved by the Bankruptcy Court; that the final settlement included a greater financial contribution from the Sacklers; and that it permanently bars the Sacklers from selling opioids in the United States. Delaware receives over $27 million as a lump sum. [src-006] - Qualification: The office's own figures: its $4.5 billion for the earlier Sackler contribution differs from the amounts recorded by the courts for the earlier plan, and its $7.4 billion total includes the debtors' estate cash as well as the Sackler-side payments. - Documented: According to the District Court, mediation produced a complex settlement framework that would direct the debtors' assets and $4.275 billion from the Sackler families toward abating the opioid crisis and restoring victims. After eight more offers and counteroffers between the end of January and 18 February 2021, the Sackler families and entities, the debtors, the AHC, the 'Consenting Ad Hoc Committee' and the MSGE reached an agreement in principle on a guaranteed amount the Sackler families would be required to contribute to the debtors' estate: $4.275 billion over nine years (or ten years if certain amounts were paid ahead of schedule in the first six years), the principal consideration being the 'Shareholder Release' to be included in the plan. The Second Circuit records that twenty-five non-consenting states, among others, rejected the agreement. The plan and the Disclosure Statement containing the Sackler Settlement Agreement Term Sheet were filed on 15 March 2021. [src-003] [src-044] - Qualification: The contribution is an obligation of the Sackler families and their entities, separate from the debtors' own assets. - Analysis: The Disclosure Statement also recalls how the earlier Initial Shareholder Settlement Agreement was secured. Side B of the families formed only two obligor groups; on information Side B supplied as of 30 September 2020 and October 2019, under the families' own methodology, each group's obligors held net assets averaging more than twice their potential obligations, and the two groups pledged equity in holding companies that indirectly owned investment assets valued at over $1 billion. These are family-supplied valuations, not an appraisal or court finding, and they concern the earlier deal. One condition of that agreement was that Pharmaceutical Research Associates L.P. (PRA), Purdue Pharma L.P.'s parent, end its licences to the debtor Avrio Health L.P. (later Purdue Products L.P.) for Senokot- and Betadine-branded over-the-counter products and assign the licensed intellectual property to Avrio. [src-015] [src-096] ## The settlement figures: who pays what - Analysis: The figures in circulation measure different things. The Disclosure Statement names two sources of cash for the creditor trusts: the Shareholder Payment Parties, who agreed to pay up to $7.0 billion over fifteen years to the Master Disbursement Trust plus up to $500 million more contingent on the sale of their independent associated companies (IACs), and the debtors' own estates, projected to hold about $927 million on the effective date, a projection that depended on timing, case costs and cash restrictions; the document puts the total anticipated cash at approximately up to $7.4 billion. Of the family-side money, subject to certain contingencies, $1.5 billion falls due on the effective date, $500 million on each of the first two anniversaries, $400 million on the third and the remaining $3.6 billion in later annual instalments, a schedule that adds up to $6.5 billion; the Sackler Covered Parties must use commercially reasonable efforts to sell the IACs within seven years, failing which the trust may seek a forced sale above an appraised amount. The family-side payments are obligations of the payment parties; the estate cash belongs to the debtors. The same document sets the Required Settlement Amount at up to $6.5 billion, $2,762.5 million from the A-Side and $3,737.5 million from the B-Side, and plan section 5.2(d) likewise speaks of up to $6.5 billion over 15 years, adding that neither the amount nor its allocation concedes anything about the claims or defences; the retained records do not explain how the $7.0 billion figure relates to the $6.5 billion. A footnote provides that A-Side Payment Group 8's $345 million obligation is to be prepaid at $225,677,259.42, or at $218 million, its agreed present value, if prepaid on the effective date. [src-015] [src-039] [src-042] - Analysis: Officials and counsel quoted these totals with different scopes. The New York Attorney General described a $7.4 billion settlement in whose first payment Purdue pays about $900 million, which is the estates' cash, and the Sacklers $1.5 billion, followed by family payments of $500 million in May 2027, $500 million in May 2028 and $400 million in May 2029, with funding over 15 years. The debtors' lead restructuring counsel stated in May 2026 that the family was contributing up to $6.5 to $7 billion of about $7.4 billion in cash, including $1.5 billion paid on the effective date, and that individual victims would receive up to $865 million, about $815 million of it funded to the personal-injury trust that day; that is counsel's own account of its engagement, and no court record of the effective-date payments is among the retained documents. Purdue Pharma L.P.'s own criminal sentence is a separate matter: on 28 April 2026 the company was ordered to pay a $3.544 billion fine, to be assessed in the bankruptcy, and $2 billion in forfeiture, against which the Justice Department said it would credit up to $1.775 billion for value given to governments through the bankruptcy if Purdue ceased to operate in its current form and emerged as a public benefit company or similar entity. [src-005] [src-066] [src-077] - Analysis: Press reports gave single figures. In June 2025, before confirmation, one report stated that under a $7.4 billion settlement just approved by 55 attorneys general, family members were understood to contribute $6.5 billion of their personal fortunes and Purdue about $900 million, which is the estates' cash, with payouts over 15 years but expected mostly within three; it added that the family has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and would not have to declare bankruptcy. A May 2026 report likewise put the family payment at $6.5 billion, noted that no member of the Sackler family was charged with a crime related to the company's actions, and described David Sackler, a son of former chief executive Richard Sackler and a board member before the bankruptcy, as having testified before Congress. The $6.5 billion matches the Disclosure Statement's Required Settlement Amount and plan section 5.2(d), while the same documents elsewhere give up to $7 billion; the plan was confirmed on 18 November 2025 and took effect on 1 May 2026. [src-094] [src-015] [src-020] [src-081] - Analysis: Separately from the family money, the plan fixes some effective-date payments out of the debtors' own cash: an Initial NAS PI Distribution to the personal-injury trust of $48,213,070 plus $65,848,195, less a holdback of $1,809,265 and other deductions, and an Initial Public Schools Distribution printed in the order as '$25,560,000 million', apparently a drafting slip, less retained amounts and a $60,000 holdback. These are estate funds, and the amounts actually paid are not in the retained records. [src-039] ## Payment groups, release parties and naming rights - Analysis: The obligors are listed in Exhibit A to the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement, known here from a counsel's draft filed on 7 November 2025 (Doc 8201), which names only Sackler-side payment parties and no debtor; their payments go to the Master Disbursement Trust. Side A has eight payment groups of trusts with individual obligors: Theresa Sackler (third tier in Group 1, fourth tier in Groups 5 to 7), Kathe Sackler (Group 2), Ilene Sackler Lefcourt (Group 3), Mortimer D.A. Sackler (Group 4) and Samantha Hunt (Group 8, subject in the draft to her counsel's confirmation). Side B has two groups: Group 1 lists Dr. Richard S. Sackler, David A. Sackler, the Estate of Beverly Sackler, Rosebay Medical Company, Inc. and many trusts and holding entities; Group 2 lists the Estate of Jonathan D. Sackler, the Estate of Beverly Sackler, Rosebay Medical Company, Inc. and others. Being listed is a contractual settlement obligation, not a finding of liability, and the final lists may differ from the draft: in October 2026 the court described Side B Group 1 as one individual and more than fifty trusts and said that Richard Sackler is not a party to it in his own name, his obligations being set out in Annex G. [src-042] [src-039] [src-087] - Analysis: The Estate of Jonathan D. Sackler takes part through its executor. On 1 April 2026 counsel for The Raymond Sackler Family notified the Bankruptcy Court that the Connecticut Court of Probate had approved the executor of the Estate of Jonathan D. Sackler entering into settlement, credit-support and collateral agreements under section 10.01(c) of the master agreement, and had accepted the executor's declaration that the estate is insolvent. The notice is known from the docket entry; the decrees themselves were not retrieved. [src-096] - Analysis: Exhibit X to the Master Shareholder Settlement Agreement, filed on the effective date, lists certain Shareholder Released Parties of the 2025 settlement. Its A-Side list names family members including Theresa E. Sackler, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, Kathe A. Sackler, Mortimer D.A. Sackler and Samantha Hunt, with their spouses, children, grandchildren and owned entities, and trusts and trustees including Beacon Trust, Beacon Trust Company Limited and Anthony M. Roncalli, described as a current or former director or officer of an entity in Purdue Pharma L.P.'s ownership chain and of a trust company, and as a trustee. It also lists 'II-way entities', defined as owned in equal shares by persons or trusts of both family branches, among them The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., Purdue Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Rhodes Technologies Inc. and TXP Services Inc.; these non-debtor corporations are distinct from the debtors Rhodes Technologies and Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. Service providers released in that capacity include Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, counsel both to Shareholder Released Parties and to the debtors, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and other advisers. Releases of direct claims bind only creditors who opted in, and being listed is not a finding about anyone's conduct. [src-058] [src-039] - Documented: Exhibit X also lists as Shareholder Released Parties numerous "II-way entities", defined as entities directly or indirectly owned by persons or trusts associated with both the Raymond Sackler family and the Mortimer Sackler family, with equal interests for each family; they include The Purdue Frederick Company Inc., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., Purdue Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Rhodes Technologies Inc. and TXP Services Inc. These non-debtor corporations are distinct from the similarly named debtors Rhodes Technologies (a partnership) and Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P. [src-058] [src-039] - Qualification: The classification is the settling parties' description in a settlement exhibit; it identifies family-owned non-debtor entities but does not itself establish ownership percentages. - Analysis: The Confirmation Order adds a term that is not about money. From the effective date each family member and payment party must let any U.S. institution that granted it naming rights remove the 'Sackler' name from buildings and from academic, medical and cultural programmes on forty-five days' confidential notice, and family members may not seek new 'Sackler' naming rights for donations until their groups' remaining payment obligations are reduced to zero and their IAC payment parties no longer hold IAC interests beyond permitted retained interests; donations themselves remain permitted. [src-039] ## Confirmation, consensual releases and what was not released - Analysis: Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane confirmed the Eighteenth Amended Plan on 18 November 2025 (Doc 8263), finding that the debtors had proved every requirement of section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of the evidence; his Modified Bench Ruling, decided on 20 November 2025, describes the plan as delivering some $6.5 to $7 billion in value from the debtors' former shareholders, with the support of more than 99% of voting creditors and every major organised creditor group. The order found the third-party releases in sections 10.6 and 10.7 consensual, binding only the releasing parties who consented, and therefore consistent with Harrington, and found the family consideration of up to $7 billion over fifteen years larger than the debtors' value as a going concern and allowing the debtors to make the payments required under the DOJ Resolution and the plan settlements. Claimants who opt in waive their direct claims against the Sackler Parties and share in both the estate and the direct settlements; those who do not keep their direct claims, receive only estate distributions and may still vote for the plan. Because the releases are no longer global, certain litigation costs the Sackler Parties incur on non-participating creditors' claims reduce their payment obligations. The debtors fixed 1 March 2026 as the opt-in deadline. [src-039] [src-020] [src-101] - Documented: On November 18, 2025 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane) entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming the Eighteenth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Purdue Pharma L.P. and Its Affiliated Debtors (Doc 8263, Case No. 19-23649 (SHL)). The court found that the Debtors had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that all requirements of section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code were satisfied and confirmed the plan in its entirety. In its Modified Bench Ruling (decided November 20, 2025, memorialising the ruling read into the record on November 18, 2025) the court described the plan as delivering some $6.5 to $7 billion in value from the Debtors' former shareholders, supported by more than 99% of voting creditors and by every major organized creditor constituency. [src-039] [src-020] [src-101] - Outcome: The plan became effective on May 1, 2026; appeals from confirmation were taken to the District Court. - Analysis: The ruling also states what the plan does not do. Judge Lane said, as Judge Drain had in the earlier confirmation decision, that the plan contains no release of criminal conduct of any kind for any party, noting that Purdue Pharma had pleaded guilty to three felony offences after a DOJ investigation. In approving the settlements he recorded that the debtors believe the estates have meritorious claims against certain shareholders and that the creditors' committee had set out its view of them in a 203-page, 22-count draft complaint against the Sackler Parties, but found that litigating them would take years with uncertain success and possible obstacles to collection, and that without a settlement satisfying the DOJ Resolution the debtors might owe the entire $2 billion forfeiture judgment. The estate claims against the family side were settled, not adjudicated, and the Sackler Parties did not share the plan supporters' view of the transfers. [src-101] - Analysis: The family side gave its own account at the confirmation trial. As the court summarised it, seven witnesses called by Side A or Side B testified that the Sacklers were contributing substantially all their assets: one witness called by both sides estimated pre-petition assets of some $3.5526 billion for Side A and $5.0405 billion for Side B, an expert said the Side A trusts, principally located in Jersey, might be held unreachable by creditors, and another witness said $4.559 billion of tax distributions from the debtors had been made for reasonable value. For the debtors, a witness had analysed 37 pre-petition transfers worth some $1.4 billion and concluded that the Sacklers did not provide reasonable value. The court decided neither set of values; it found that the settlement factors weighed overwhelmingly in favour of approval. [src-101] - Analysis: Two stipulations were approved with the order. One, entered into as of 6 October 2025, is between the debtors and two former Purdue officers, Mark Timney and John H. Stewart, and was acknowledged by the creditors' committee, the Ad Hoc Committee and the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group; its terms are not in the retained part of the order. The other, of 3 November 2025, resolved the plan objection of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, with The Raymond Sackler Family and Beacon Company among those acknowledging it; objections to Baltimore's proof of claim are held in abeyance during its standstill period. [src-039] ## The effective date, the end of Purdue and the trusts - Analysis: The plan took effect, and was substantially consummated, on 1 May 2026. That day the New York Attorney General announced that Purdue had shut down, that Knoa Pharma, LLC, owned by the newly established nonprofit Knoa Foundation and overseen by directors and trustees with no association with Purdue, had begun operating in its place, and that all members of the Sackler family are barred from selling opioids in the United States and from any involvement in the new company. Under the plan the boards of all debtors were dissolved; the debtors not transferred to Knoa continue only to liquidate their assets and make distributions; interests in Purdue Pharma Inc. are cancelled; holders of interests in Purdue Pharma L.P. relinquish them without receiving any property, and those interests are cancelled when the partnership is dissolved; and a PPLP Liquidator, succeeding to the powers of the general partners, directors and officers, winds the debtors up and is paid by the Plan Administration Trustee from the Wind-Up Reserve. [src-020] [src-005] [src-039] [src-015] - Analysis: Most of Purdue's value, including the proceeds of the settlement of the estates' claims, goes to nine trusts: the Master Disbursement Trust, which receives the family-side payments; the Governmental Remediation Trust and the Tribe Trust; the Public School Trust; the PI, Healthcare Provider, TPP and ERP trusts for private creditors; and the Plan Administration Trust. The court noted that about $865.8 million is for qualified personal-injury claimants, paid virtually immediately after the effective date, while governments and other creditors are paid over the plan's 15 years, partly depending on the prices the Sacklers obtain for their non-Purdue businesses. After the effective date the Plan Administration Trust files the agendas for the case's omnibus hearings, including those of 10 September and 7 October 2026. [src-101] [src-020] [src-039] - Analysis: Under the plan Knoa Pharma LLC receives substantially all the debtors' non-cash assets and $135 million in cash, free of claims including successor liability for Purdue's past conduct, except the liabilities it assumes, among them the remaining termination costs of the Purdue Pension Plan. It is run by five independent managers selected by the settling states under the oversight of the foundation's three independent trustees, and each year pays 96.7% of its governmental distributable cash to the Governmental Remediation Trust and 3.3% to the Tribe Trust. Knoa's own release of 1 May 2026 announced that it had begun operations, named the trustees and directors of its two boards and appointed Marc Kesselman, previously the company's chief legal officer, interim chief executive. The Knoa Pharma page sets out the company's ownership, governance, leadership and obligations. [src-101] [src-039] [src-057] [src-099] - Documented: In a release dated May 1, 2026, Knoa Pharma LLC of Stamford, Connecticut announced that it began operations that day, following the conclusion of Purdue Pharma L.P.'s Chapter 11 proceedings on May 1, 2026, when Purdue permanently ceased operations. The company stated that it is 100% owned by the newly established not-for-profit Knoa Foundation, a 501(c)(4), and is overseen by two independent boards whose members have no prior association with Purdue: the Knoa Foundation Board of Trustees (Paul B. Rothman, chair, Rahul Gupta and David Saltzman) and the Knoa Pharma Board of Directors (Norbert Riedel, chair, Karen Griffin, Patricia Lang and Mike McHale). [src-057] - Qualification: Company statement; the Chapter 11 case itself continued after the effective date, with omnibus hearings and enforcement proceedings later in 2026. - Documented: Knoa Pharma stated on May 1, 2026 that Marc Kesselman, previously the company's Chief Legal Officer and EVP Strategy & Corporate Affairs, had been appointed President & Chief Executive Officer of Knoa Pharma on an interim basis while a search is conducted for a permanent CEO. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc's proxy statement filed with the SEC states that Norbert G. Riedel, a Jazz director since May 2013, currently serves on the board of "Knoa Pharmaceuticals LLC", which it groups with other privately held companies. [src-057] [src-099] - Qualification: The proxy's name 'Knoa Pharmaceuticals LLC' is read as Knoa Pharma LLC, whose board Riedel chairs according to the company's own release. ## Appeals from confirmation - Analysis: Confirmation was appealed. Before the order was entered a pro se objector filed a notice of appeal on 15 November 2025 and asked for a stay, which Judge Lane refused in his ruling because the request did not address the stay factors and delay would harm claimants; on 24 December 2025 District Judge Nelson S. Román, in In re Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 7:25-cv-09681, noted that the related matters had not been consolidated and only a briefing schedule had been set, and declined the appellant's procedural requests. A restructuring-case blog reports that other appellants filed notices from 4 December 2025, that Judge Lane denied all stay motions in a bench ruling on 12 February 2026, which was not retrieved, and that the appeals remained pending, some appellants arguing that the opt-in mechanism still does not satisfy Harrington; the blog's date for the first notices is later than the 15 November notice shown in the court record. The claims agent's calendar shows hearings on the stay motions on 4 and 12 February 2026, with agendas filed for Purdue Pharma L.P. The plan took effect on 1 May 2026, and no decision on the merits of any appeal appears in the retained records. [src-111] [src-101] [src-020] [src-088] ## Enforcing the settlement against Richard Sackler and Lin Gao, 2025 to 2026 - Analysis: The Side B obligations have been contested from inside the family. In early 2025, the Bankruptcy Court later recounted as undisputed, Richard Sackler sued under seal in Wyoming state court, challenging the Side B Trustees' authority to act for all Side B members and alleging that they were stripping his powers over family trusts, a suit the court said threatened the very heart of the settlement talks. A stipulation of 1 August 2025 ended it: dismissal without prejudice, a 14-month litigation standstill after the effective date, covenants by Richard Sackler and Lin Gao (the RSS Parties) not to interfere with the plan or the settlement, and irrevocable ratification of the trustees' actions, with the Master Disbursement Trust as third-party beneficiary. Paragraph 33 of the Confirmation Order kept those undertakings in force, including not using a power of appointment over a payment party's trust property against the plan; the order also directed the RSS Parties and the rest of Side B Payment Group 1 to comply, required all Sackler parties to sign the settlement documents by a set date, and reserved to the court the power to resolve any failure of performance 'by Richard Sackler or any other party' and impose sanctions. Counsel for each of the two confirmed their client's agreement to these provisions at the hearing on 14 November 2025. [src-087] [src-039] - Analysis: Richard Sackler's own obligations are set out in Annex G, the credit-support annex for the Richard Sackler family payment group, B-Side Payment Group 1. He, his estate and any trust taking his assets at his death are the Individual Pledgor; he pledged his equity in ABSG LLC, the Delaware company he formed as his Personal Limited Liability Company, shares of Sackler-controlled non-debtor foreign companies he owns and related bank accounts, with the Master Disbursement Trust as secured party. Unlike the rest of the group he negotiated a 'naked pledge': the trust must first enforce against the group's other collateral, and he keeps unfettered control of his personal assets in the meantime. Conditions of the settlement's effectiveness included moving substantially all his assets into ABSG LLC, with exceptions such as other assets worth up to $5,000,000; an undertaking by him and Lin Gao to comply with the Stipulation; a delegation to Cedar Cliff Inc. of authority over payments by a 1974 trust for Beverly Sackler; and the transfer into ABSG LLC of all funds previously placed in trust for Lin Gao or another family member, including about $4 million in two trusts. Whether and when each condition was met or waived is not shown. Lin Gao is defined as an RSS Related Party: after an enforcement event, transfers of ABSG LLC's assets to Richard Sackler or to an RSS Related Party become restricted payments. [src-097] [src-087] - Analysis: Compliance problems began before the plan took effect. A restructuring-case blog reports that the court directed all Sackler payment parties to sign the master agreement and related documents by 19 December 2025, later 10 February 2026; that a supermajority signed but Richard S. Sackler did not; and that on 24 February 2026 the court ordered him to show cause, exposing him to possible contempt and monetary sanctions. The order to show cause was not retrieved, but Judge Lane's October 2026 ruling confirms that Richard Sackler's failure to comply with Confirmation Order obligations, including his refusal to timely sign documents needed for the plan to take effect, was discussed at a hearing on 25 February 2026. The plan became effective on 1 May 2026. [src-088] [src-087] - Analysis: Days after the effective date, the court recorded, the RSS Parties filed four pleadings that the trustees call the Interference Actions: a motion in the Wyoming suit to terminate the Stipulation and reverse its dismissal; an affidavit in land records seeking to quiet title in their favour to a property held by a pledged Side B trust; a Wyoming petition against Data LLC, trustee of four pledged trusts, for an accounting and an order directing income distributions it said were owed to Richard Sackler for August 2019 to April 2026; and a lis pendens on the same property noting a new action against ARIT Investment Holdings LLC, a payment party and pledgor. Frank S. Vellucci, Daniel S. Connolly and Rory Held, as trustees of trusts in Side B Payment Group 1, moved to enforce the Confirmation Order (ECF No. 9189) and to have the actions withdrawn and their fees paid, and the Master Disbursement Trust joined them. Richard Sackler and Lin Gao opposed the motion without challenging the agreements or denying that the actions targeted pledged assets: they argued that the master agreement's reservation of the trustees' fiduciary duties permitted the actions, called the Wyoming case an intra-family dispute over trust control, fiduciary misconduct, beneficiary rights and trust decantings, and sought documents. [src-087] - Documented: Frank S. Vellucci, Daniel S. Connolly and Rory Held, in their capacities as trustees of certain trusts in Side B Payment Group 1 (the "Side B Trustees"), moved in the Bankruptcy Court (ECF No. 9189) to enforce the Shareholder Settlement Document Undertakings of the Confirmation Order and to direct Richard Sackler and Lin Gao to comply with the Confirmation Order and the Stipulation, asking that the RSS Parties be ordered to withdraw or dismiss the four Interference Actions and any later violating filings and to reimburse the trustees' reasonable legal fees and expenses. They argued that the actions interfere with the Master Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 9132) between the Purdue Master Disbursement Trust and parties including the Debtors, the Sackler family, the RSS Parties and family-controlled trusts. The Master Disbursement Trust, incorporated in April 2026 to administer the distribution of settlement funds, joined the motion. The court heard it on June 29, 2026. [src-087] - Response: Richard Sackler and Lin Gao opposed the motion (ECF Nos. 9204 and 9359). They did not challenge the validity of the Confirmation Order, the MSA or the Stipulation or dispute that the actions were directed at assets pledged under Annex E, but contended that the actions were permitted by the MSA's reservation of rights preserving the trustees' fiduciary duties, characterised the Wyoming Litigation as an intra-family dispute over trust control, fiduciary misconduct, beneficiary rights and the validity of trust decantings, and sought production of documents. - Outcome: Granted in full by the Bankruptcy Court: bench ruling read into the record on August 21, 2026, order entered as ECF No. 9590, written Modified Bench Ruling issued on October 8, 2026. - Analysis: Judge Lane granted the motion in full, by a bench ruling on 21 August 2026 followed by an order (ECF No. 9590) and a written Modified Bench Ruling on 8 October 2026. He held that each action violated the confirmed plan, the master agreement and the Stipulation by interfering with the pledges securing Side B Payment Group 1's payments, whether by reviving settled litigation during a standstill that runs to July 2027, clouding title to a pledged asset or seeking to have pledged trust funds paid to Richard Sackler rather than applied to the group's payments; that the general reservation of rights the RSS Parties invoked could not override the specific terms; that it was 'crystal clear' they had breached those terms; and that he would award the trustees and the trust their reasonable fees and costs on application. The amount awarded and any appeal are not shown in the retained records. A legal-press report of 13 October 2026 described the ruling as finding that Richard Sackler and his wife Lin Gao had violated the confirmation order, the settlement agreement and the August 2025 stipulation and ordering them to unwind the state actions, which matches the ruling's text. Richard Sackler and Lin Gao also filed their own motion to enforce the Confirmation Order and Settlement Stipulation, set for hearing on 28 October 2026, after the retained records end; a case-tracking listing shows an objection to it by an individual claimant, and the motion's content and outcome are not in the retained records. [src-087] [src-020] [src-080] [src-108] ## Sources - [src-040] Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124, opinion of the Court and dissent, Supreme Court of the United States, 2024-06-27 - [src-039] Court record source · src-039 - [src-020] Court record source · src-020 - [src-015] Court record source · src-015 - [src-003] Memorandum decision and order of Judge Colleen McMahon vacating the confirmation order, In re Purdue Pharma L.P., S.D.N.Y. 21-cv-7532 (CM) (master case; filed as Document 148 in related case 7:21-cv-07585), Office of the Connecticut Attorney General, 2021-12-16 - [src-047] Court record source · src-047 - [src-006] State of Delaware news release: Purdue–Sackler $7.4 billion opioid settlement goes into effect, State of Delaware (Department of Justice), 2026-05-01 - [src-044] Court record source · src-044 - [src-096] Court record source · src-096 - [src-042] Court record source · src-042 - [src-005] New York Attorney General press release on the shutdown of Purdue Pharma and the start of Knoa Pharma, Office of the New York State Attorney General, 2026-05-01 - [src-066] Company statement source · src-066 - [src-077] DOJ press release: opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma sentenced for fraud and kickback conspiracies, U.S. Department of Justice, 2026-04-28 - [src-094] Media source · src-094 - [src-081] Media source · src-081 - [src-087] Court record source · src-087 - [src-058] Court record source · src-058 - [src-101] Court record source · src-101 - [src-057] Company statement source · src-057 - [src-099] Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc proxy statement (definitive), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR), 2026-05-29 - [src-111] Court record source · src-111 - [src-088] Media source · src-088 - [src-097] Court record source · src-097 - [src-080] Media source · src-080 - [src-108] Other source · src-108