In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.

Case Number:	7:2021cv07532
Filed:	October 6, 2021
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
Nature of Suit:	Bankruptcy Appeal (801)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA

Date Filed	Document Text
February 9, 2022	Filing 347 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting (342) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; granting (192) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; granting (200) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07961-CM; granting (199) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; granting (205) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; granting (206) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; granting (194) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; granting (186) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08042-CM; granting (193) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; granting (196) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; granting (183) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08139-CM; granting (172) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08258-CM; granting (191) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM; granting (140) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08548-CM; granting (140) M otion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08557-CM; granting (145) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08566-CM. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted without opposition. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/9/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
January 7, 2022	Filing 301 ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING DEBTORS' AND ALLIED PARTIES' MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY granting (294) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (282) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (284) Motion fo r Certificate of Appealability; granting (286) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; granting (150) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (158) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; granting (160) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (168) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-0796 1-CM; granting (159) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (161) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (167) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; granting (165) Motion for Certificate of Appeal ability; granting (167) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (173) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; granting (166) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (168) Motion for Certificate of App ealability; granting (174) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; granting (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (156) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; granting (146) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (148) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08042-CM; granting (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (160) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; granting (155) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (1 57) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (164) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; granting (143) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (145) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (151) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08139-CM; granting (132) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (134) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (140) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in cas e 7:21-cv-08258-CM; granting (150) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (158) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM; granting (100) Motion for Certifi cate of Appealability; granting (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (108) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08548-CM; granting (99) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (101) Motion for Certi ficate of Appealability; granting (107) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08557-CM; granting (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (104) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (111) Motion for Ce rtificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08566-CM. So the motion for a certificate of appealability is granted, conditioned on the following: the parties seeking to appeal this court's decision and order vacating confirmation of the plan have until January 17, 2022, to make an application to the Second Circuit for an appeal, and that motion must include a request that the appeal be considered on an expedited basis, given the urgency of the opioid crisis and the importance of the issue to the resolution of this case. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. The Clerk is directed to remove the motions at 282, 284, 286, and 294 from the court's list of open motions.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/7/2022) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
January 3, 2022	Filing 287 ORDER with respect to (282) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (284) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (286) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; with respect to (150) Mot ion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; with respect to (160) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealabil ity in case 7:21-cv-07961-CM; with respect to (159) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (161) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; with respect to (165) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; wit h respect to (167) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; with respect to (166) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (168) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; with respec t to (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (156) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; with respect to (146) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (148) Motion for Certificat e of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08042-CM; with respect to (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; with respect to (155) Motion for Certificate of App ealability; with respect to (157) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; with respect to (143) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (145) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08139- CM; with respect to (132) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (134) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08258-CM; with respect to (150) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM; with respect to (100) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08548-CM; with respect to (99) Motion for Cert ificate of Appealability; with respect to (101) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08557-CM; with respect to (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (104) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08566-CM. Because of the importance of the issues raised by the motions for certification (Dkt. Nos. 282, 284, 286), any party that opposes certification of the court's order for immediate appeal to the Second Circuit must file a brief explaining the reasons for opposition no later than Thursday, January 6, at 5 PM. The court plans to rule on the motion on an expedited basis this Friday (no reply will be necessary).. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/3/2022) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
December 16, 2021	Filing 280 DECISION AND ORDER ON APPEAL: For the foregoing reasons, the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order and related Advance Order must be vacated. This decision leaves on the table a number of critically important issues that were briefed and arg ued on appeal principal among them, whether the Section 10.7 Shareholder Release can or should be approved on the peculiar facts of this case, assuming all the other legal challenges to their validity were resolved in Debtors' favor. But suffic ient unto the day. This and the other issues raised by the parties can be addressed if they need to be addressed - which is to say, if this ruling is reversed. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. This is a written opinion. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/16/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
December 3, 2021	Filing 237 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS denying (216) Motion for Sanctions in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM. Pro se appellant Ellen Isaacs, on Behalf of Patrick Ryan Wroblewski, filed a motion for sanctions against Davis Polk, dated November 25, 2021, seekin g $17 billion in sanctions. (Dkt. No. 216). Davis Polk filed a response to this motion on November 30, 2021. (Dkt. No. 232). For the reasons set forth in the Debtors' response (id.), the Court agrees that the motion is meritless and should be DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 216.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/3/2021) BY ECF TO ALL PARTIES Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
December 1, 2021	Filing 234 SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING: At the close of argument yesterday I invited the parties to weigh in in writing on a question I raised at the end of the day. Because it had been a long day, and because we had discussed so much, the question was inel egantly phrased. The issue is this: In Metromedia, the Second Circuit cautioned against the approval of a release of third-party claims against a non-debtor because the granting of such releases is subject to abuse. And in Manville III, the Circuit indicated that the possibility of abuse was heightened in situations where the non-debtors condition their financial contribution to the debtor's estate on such releases. In re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52, 66 (2d Cir. 2008). From 1995-2007 , Purdue only "upstreamed" enough money to the Sacklers to allow them to pay taxes and retain a relatively modest dividend for themselves. According to information provided by the Debtor, the Sacklers used 90% of Purdue's upstream ed earnings were used to pay. taxes; just 10% of those distributions were retained by the family. Purdue kept the rest of its earnings in treasury. From 2008-2018, this changed. During that period only 44% of the money that Purdue upstreame d to the Sacklers was needed to pay taxes on Purdue's earnings. 56% of those distributions were retained by the family. This change - regardless of what occasioned it -- resulted in Purdue's having far less in its treasury when it decl ared bankruptcy than would have been the case had the family adhered to the prior distribution pattern. I am struggling with whether this is something that a court can/should take into account in deciding whether the releases on which the Sacklers co nditioned their financial contribution to the Debtors' estate are "abusive" in the Metromedia/Manville III sense - especially in light of evidence in the record that the Sacklers were concerned about litigation risk during those later years and were being advised to adopt an "aggressive" plan of cash distribution during that period. I can't find any guidance in prior cases because, as far as I can tell, nothing remotely similar happened in any prior case. And as I t old you yesterday, I don't think this has anything to do with whether the distributions to the Sacklers qualify as fraudulent conveyances. I would very much appreciate your weighing in on this issue, both on its merits and on what it might mean in terms of the need for a remand to Judge Drain. As to the latter question, would your answer be different if there were a Stern v. Marshall problem (which is different from whether there is a subject matter jurisdiction problem - I think the Debtor has pretty much resolved that issue to my satisfaction)? Finally, while I doubt that there is much of anything that anyone has to say on the statutory authorization issue that has not already been said, if, after yesterday's argument, you have thought of some new argument, feel free to bring it to my attention. I don't need (or want) additional briefing on any other issue. I would appreciate having your thoughts by next Monday morning at 9 AM at the latest. I would like to promise you an opinion next week, but I simply cannot, although I will try. Please bring me up to date on the various deadlines that are presently in force. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/1/2021) BY ECF TO ALL PARTIESFiled In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
November 29, 2021	Filing 227 NOTICE. There will be a "LISTEN ONLY" number at which people who are not at the courthouse can listen to tomorrow's oral argument: 888-363-4749, access code 9054506. This number can be used by attorneys who are not coming to the cour t house, as well as member of the press (although we are saving a few seats in my courtroom and in our overflow space for press) and public. This line will be muted; it may not be used for any party to appear remotely. Participants dialing in are reminded that video or audio recording of court proceedings is prohibited by law. The pro se appellants who will be appearing remotely should dial in to the private number that was sent to them separately by email. Do not dial into the listen only number in the first paragraph of this notice, or you will not be able to present your argument to the court. We have also obtained a second overflow courtroom for non-speaking lawyers and members of the public. The overflow rooms are 23A and 15A. As you might imagine, demand for overflow space in connection with the Maxwell trial has made it impossible to obtain any more space, despite our best efforts. I am grateful to the District Executive and his staff for their efforts to make as much space available to us as possible. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/29/21) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (yv)
November 22, 2021	Filing 197 LOGISTICS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: The pmpose of this order is to provide logistics for oral arguments are scheduled for 9:00 AM on November 30, 2021, in courtroom 24A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Court House at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. On ly those with a speaking role should appear in person for oral argument. Non-speaking counsel and members of the public are invited attend the hearing in an overflow courtroom (with limited capacity) at Room 23A. Seating is first come, first serve. C e1tain pro se appellants have requested to appear remotely. The pro se patties who wish to appear remotely will be sent a private dial-in line by email, to the email the Court has on record. Pro se parties who wish to appear in person in Courtroom 24 A are still permitted to appear in person should they choose (they are not obligated to appear remotely but may, as requested). A reminder that the Court has previously set forth the following schedule and expects the parties to be prepared to argue the case within these limits (see Dkt. No. 140): Oral argument will begin at 9:00 AM. Appellants have from 9:00-11:15 to present argument. Pro se appellants have from 11:15-11:30. We will break for lunch from 11:30-12:30. Appellees have from 12 :30-2:45 to present their argument. The Court has from 3:00-4:00 for its own purposes (i.e., hearing rebuttal or asking questions). Oral argument ends at 4:00 PM. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/22/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
November 17, 2021	Filing 171 QUESTION FOR COUNSEL: Counsel, rather than continue to look for a needle in the haystack that is your record, I will simply ask you the following: is there, anywhere in this massive record, information comparable to that contained in the Declarati on of Richard Collura about the decade PRIOR to January 1, 2008? In particular, I am looking for information that would correlate with Mr. Collura' s paragraph 12 - specifically, (i) the amount of Total Net Cash Distributions Paid to or for the Benefit of the Affiliated Entities and/or Taxing Authorities during any period prior to January 1, 2008, and (ii) the amount of any such Net Cash Distributions that was paid in taxes, as opposed to being distributed to the various Sackler entities. I f you could either point me to the right place or confirm that there is no such information in the record, I would be most grateful. The briefs are, as predicted, uniformly excellent and very thought provoking. My list of questions is growing longer, so I look forward to meeting with you on November 30. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/17/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSELFiled In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
November 10, 2021	Filing 140 SCHEDULE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: Counsel, after listening to your session before the very indulgent Judge Drain yesterday, I think I had better set some rules for our oral argument on November 30, as I intend to be much less indulgent. We will begin at 9 :00 AM and proceed as follows: Appellants to have from 9:00-11: 15 to present argument. We will program a short break into that period. You can divide the time as you would like. But at 11: 15, appellants are done. The figurative little red light goe s off and everyone sits down. Just like the Court of Appeals. I will hear the pro se litigants from 11: 15-11 :30. They will be appearing remotely. We will break for lunch from 11 :30-12:30. I realize that is on the early side, but we have a shortage of court reporters and they will need a significant break. So will I. Debtors and the other plan proponents have from 12:30-2:45 to present their argument. Again, we will program a short break into that time; and again, you can divide the time as y ou wish. And again, the little red light goes off at 2:45 and everyone sits down. I don't necessarily want reply argument/rebuttal. I want an hour at the end, from 3:00- 4:00, for my own purposes. I may ask to hear rebuttal; I may simply want to ask additional questions. You can anticipate a hot bench; my clerks and I are deeply immersed in the record and the relevant cases. In fact, on Monday, November 29, I will probably send out some questions that you should be prepared to address. At 4 :00 PM, we will be through with oral argument. We will adhere strictly to these time limits. You should plan your arguments accordingly. I don't need a lot of exposition or background at oral argument. The briefs I have read are excellent and se t out appellants' positions quite well. I have no reason to believe that the Debtors' briefs and those of their allies will be any less thorough or effective in presenting their position. There are fascinating legal issues to work through a nd that is how we should spend most of our time together. Furthermore, it is not my impression that there is much dispute over Judge Drain's findings of fact; it seems to be his conclusions of law that divide the parties. But since appellants ar e arguing that the Bankruptcy Court lacks subject matter or constitutional jurisdiction over certain aspects of the Confirmation Order, they should be prepared to argue to me as though Judge Drain's findings of fact and conclusions of law in tho se respects were a Report and Recommendation to the district court. Appellees should be prepared to respond accordingly. While I see that there is a little extra time cushion after yesterday's proceedings, I probably won't be able to take a dvantage of it. I am starting a two week criminal trial on Tuesday, December 7, and I have a full calendar on Monday, December 6. So while it is not impossible that that you will have to wait until shortly before December 20 for a decision, it is hig hly unlikely. If l can get a decision out before I have to start my criminal trial, I will do so. I certainly intend to try. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/10/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL
October 21, 2021	Filing 75 ORDER CONSOLIDATING NEWLY-DOCKETED APPEALS AND ADDRESSING OTHER MATTERS: 1. I received three new assignments from the Assignment Committee this week: the long-awaited appeal by the State of Vermont has finally been docketed, as have two pro se app eals. Those three actions - 21 cv 8548, 8557 and 8566 - are hereby consolidated with all other pending appeals under the master number 21 cv 7532. Appellants are on the same schedule for briefing imposed by the court - which makes the appellants' ; briefs due tomorrow. I take it on faith that Vermont is aware of the schedule and will be prepared to file a brief tomorrow. If the prose appellants arc filing briefs on appeal, they can have until Friday, October 29, 2021. If anyone knows of any o ther anticipated appeal, please let me know as soon as possible. 2. I am getting caught up as fast as I can, but friends, I need a glossary. You all talk in abbreviations (NOAT, DMP) and I am spending as much time trying to figure out what those abbr eviations mean (I assume NOAT is Net Operating Asset Trust, and I think DMP means Distributing and Manufacturing Parties - please correct me if I am wrong) as I am reading transcript. Would the Debtors please assemble a master list of abbreviations t hat have been used in this case to save me a little time? 3. I just want to advise the parties that I remain more than theoretically interested in exactly what kinds of opioid-related claims have been or could be asse1ied against persons or corporati ons covered by the Shareholder Release at issue on this appeal who are not themselves officers, directors or agents of one or more of the Debtor corporations. I hope that in your briefing, but certainly by the time of oral argument, you can identify for me some claims (preferably actual claims, but if not then hypothetical claims) as to which the defendant would have no claim on the Debtors' estates, but which are being released under the challenged third-party release. 4. Thinking ahead to November 3 0: before I impose an oral argument schedule on the parties I will listen to your suggestions. However, heed all of the following: there will be only one day of oral argument, limited to six hours total - three hours for ALL appellants, t hree hours for appellees. I will have read all of your briefs and digested all of your written arguments. Everyone will want to talk; everyone cannot talk. Think carefully about how you want to allocate your time, because if people start to get redun dant I will cut you off. Finally, the week before argument I will very likely give you some idea about what issues I want to talk about - what would be helpful to me in crafting an opinion - and I hope you will tailor your remarks accordingly. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/21/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSELFiled In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
October 18, 2021	Filing 69 ORDER CORRECTING PRIOR DECISION denying (64) Motion for Reconsideration re (64 in 7:21-cv-07532-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - UNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE U NITED STATES TRUSTEES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL. filed by U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07966-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum an d Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07969-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarificat ion of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; denying (53) Motion for Reconsideration re (64 in 7:21-cv- 07532-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - UNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL. filed by U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07966-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pend ing Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07969-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergenc y Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; denying (53) Motion for Reconsideration re (64 in 7:21-cv-07532-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - UNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR CLARIFICA TION OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL. filed by U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07966-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - Unit ed States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07969-CM) MOTION for Reco nsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington in case 7:21-cv-07969- CM. I received over the weekend a motion from the U.S. Trustee for "clarification" of the court's order dated October 14, 2021. (Docket No. 64). In addition to its request for clarification, the U.S. Trustee asks the court to order t he Debtors to provide this court with a weekly written accounting of any activities that it takes between now and the date when this court decides the pending appeal- presumably so Appellants can assess, in light of the doctrine of equitable mootness , whether or not the time to move anew for a stay pending appeal has come. I confess error. I had believed, following our lengthy conference of last week, that the only preparatory actions being taken by the Debtors prior between now and the Effecti ve Date were being undertaken pursuant to the Advance Order. Apparently I was mistaken in that belief; some actions that would allow for quick effectuation of the Plan are being undertaken, or may be undertaken, pursuant to the authority of Paragraph 8 of the Confirmation Order. I had intended for the stipulation on which my denial of a stay pending appeal was conditioned to include all such actions, regardless of which Order authorized them; in my effort to be quite precise, I caused the order to be erroneous. I therefore correct the order so that the first full paragraph on page 13 reads as follows: as further set forth herein. This is entirely my fault, and I apologize, especially to Appellees and others who signed with alacrity a stipu lation that apparently does not cover all that I intended it to cover. (Docket No. 62). I emphasize this is a correction- not a clarification, and certainly not reconsideration. It is what I intended all along. And I think all parties know that. The U.S. Trustee asks that this stipulation cover criminal sentencing as well as actions taken pursuant to the Advance and Confirmation Orders. I am mystified by this request. The last time I looked, criminal sentencing was an action performed by a j udge, not by the defendant being sentenced. Moreover, the judge acts pursuant to her Article III authority and the criminal laws of the United States, not as a result of any Plan of Reorganization confirmed by a Bankruptcy Court. So I do not und erstand how Purdue's being sentenced could be taxed to the Debtor as an action taken in furtherance of the Plan for equitable mootness purposes. The U.S. Trustee does not offer any explanation for this aspect of his request. The fact that the Effective Date cannot occur until eight days after the sentencing does not make the sentencing an action undertaken pursuant to the Plan, or the Advance Order or the Confirmation Order. And should the judge decide to order restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act, she will be doing so on the authority of 18 U.S.C. § 3363A. I thus see no reason to grant the request; I do not even understand it. As for the request for weekly updates: that is an entirely new request for relief. It is denied.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/18/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)
October 14, 2021	Filing 60 ORDER ON THE PENDING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF NAS CHILDREN, THE MULTI-STATE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES GROUP, AND THE AD HOC GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS OF PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL denying (44) Motion to Intervene; granting (46) M otion to Intervene; granting (48) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; granting (31) Motion to Intervene; granting (33) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; granting (39) Motion to Intervene; granting (41) Motion to Intervene i n case 7:21-cv-07961-CM; granting (37) Motion to Intervene; granting (39) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; granting (41) Motion to Intervene; granting (43) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; granting (40) Motion to Interv ene; granting (42) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; granting (33) Motion to Intervene; granting (35) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; granting (32) Motion to Intervene; granting (34) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv- 08042-CM; granting (33) Motion to Intervene; granting (35) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; granting (36) Motion to Intervene; granting (38) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; granting (30) Motion to Intervene; granting ( 32) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08139-CM; granting (15) Motion to Intervene; granting (17) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08258-UA; granting (27) Motion to Intervene; granting (29) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM. After reviewing the motions and the accompanying submissions, it seems clear that both the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group and the Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. argued the issues that are being contested on appea l before the Bankruptcy Court. Their intervention motions are, therefore, granted, as I said they would be at the conference, and they shall henceforth be deemed Appellees in all the pending appeals. The Ad Hoc Committee of NAS Children admits that i t did not argue the contested issuesbelow, so its motion for leave to intervene as appellee is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the motions at Dockets 44, 46 and 48 in the Master Case at 21-cv-7532. BY ECF TO ALL PARTIES (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/14/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (jca)
October 13, 2021	Filing 55 SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS: The Court, having convened a scheduling conference in these pending bankruptcy appeals, enters the following schedule: Appellants' briefs are due October 22, 2021; Appellees' briefs are du e November 12, 2021; Appellants' rely briefs are due November 19, 2021; Oral arguments are scheduled for 10:00 AM on November 30, 2021, in courtroom 24A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Court House at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. As w ith the recent scheduling conference, only lawyers who have a speaking role should appear in person for oral argument. Non-speaking counsel and members of the public are invited to be present in an overflow courtroom (with limited capacity) or to dial in to the conference at the following number: 888-363-4749, access code 9054506. Video or audio recording of the proceedings is prohibited by law. The Court further orders that the above-captioned appeals be administratively consolidated u nder the first-filed appeal at case number 21-cv-7532, which shall be the Master Case Number. All further filings by the court will be docketed under the Master Case Number; filings peculiar to any appeal will be docketed under both the Master Cas e Number and the individual appeal Case Number. Any additional appeals from the Confirmation Order and/or the Advance Order in the matter of In re: Purdue Pharma, L.P. that are filed but not yet docketed will automatically be deemed subject to th is order and administratively consolidated with the appeals listed in the caption of this order. (Appellant Brief due by 10/22/2021., Appellant Reply Brief due by 11/19/2021., Appellee Brief due by 11/12/2021., Oral Argument set for 11/30/2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Colleen McMahon.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/13/2021) (jca)
October 10, 2021	Filing 29 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PENDING ARGUMENT ON THEUNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR A STAY(FILED AT DOCKET # 21 CV 7532; 21 CV 7961; 21 CV 7966; 21 CV 7969; 21 CV 8034; 21 CV 8042; 21 CV 8049; 21 CV 8055; 21 CV 8139McMahon, J.:The United States Trustee has anticipated by two days one of the items on MY agenda for our conference on Tuesday, that being the question of a stay pending appeal. This court is all too familiar with the doctrine of equitable mootness as applied in the Second Circuit, as it has upended my ability to decide at least one previous bankruptcy appeal. I am also aware of the fact that the issue is presently under consideration at the United States Supreme Court, which will resolve it one way or th e other this term. I have no intention of allowing the critically important issues on appeal to be equitably mooted, and I had intended to ask the parties about their views on a stay when we got together. Now that I have a formal motion, I intend to resolve the question ON TUESDAY, with oral argument. As long as I have jurisdiction to enter a stay pending appeal I fully intend to do so, unless some opponent comes up with an argument that I cannot presently anticipate. (though I will listen to wh at anyone has to say). The stay will be conditioned on adherence to an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal. I am given to understand that the automatic stay following confirmation has already expired. Accordingly, sufficient cause appearing t herefor, I hereby enter this temporary restraining order staying the effectiveness and implementation of the Bankruptcy Courts orders of September 15 and 17, 2021, from which appeals have been taken to this court (the Advance Order and the Confirmati on Order, respectively), as well as oral confirmation order dated September 1, 2021, and any other orders of which I might not be aware that are implicated by the pendency of these appeals. We will take this matter up on the merits on Tuesday. This order shall be docketed in all pending appeals. BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/10/2021). (mde) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/12/2021: # 1 order) (mde).
October 7, 2021	Filing 24 ORDER TO ALL COUNSEL: The deluge of letters has begun. It stops now. I will not allow this matter to be litigated by letter. So stop writing them. I am not going to read them. I am a stickler for proper procedure, especially in a case like t his one. I need a list of all issues that you want addressed to be sent to chambers by 9 AM on Tuesday, October 12, in advance of our afternoon session. Any issue that has been raised by letter and any issue that you are th inking of raising by letter between now and Tuesday, must be on that list, or we will not be discussing it on Tuesday. Since the issue of who is properly deemed an appellee has been raised, I will expect briefs to be filed by Tuesday morning on that question. Quite a few entities seem to have participated in the confirmation hearing, but this is an appeal and there are rules about who is a party to an appeal. I note that Advisory Opinion 100 iden tified certain entities (such as the UCC) as "parties" to a bankruptcy proceeding for conflict of interest purpose; if there is authority for the proposition that those entities either are or are not properly listed as appellees in this matter (assuming they did not file a notice of appeal), then I expect you to direct me to it. But not by letter. In the future, any applications for rulings from the court must be made by notice of motion accompanied by a short (and I mean short) brief. If this is going to be a frequent occurrence, I will come up with rules that must be followed to bring issues to my attention. But it should not be a frequent occurrence. This is an appeal, folks, not a second confirmation hearing. I am obviously expecting a number of amicus motions, and we will set a timetable on Tuesday for the making of such motions and for very quick responses thereto. What I want to discuss on Tuesday are: how soo n we can get the principal issue on appeal briefed and argued, and what other aspects of Judge Drain's order are being appealed and by whom. I would also like to know whether anyone is planning to try to move this appeal directly to the Second Circuit (we read the press too, you know). Everything else, frankly, is collateral. I hope you have a pleasant holiday weekend. Please remember that the court is closed on Monday. I will see you Tuesday afternoon. B y the way, while we are trying to find an "over flow" courtroom, there are many matters on the calendar here at the Moynihan Courthouse on Tuesday, and so far we have been unable to find one. I expect that access for those not actively participating in the conference will be by phone. We will keep you informed. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/7/2021) (js)
October 6, 2021	Filing 13 ORDER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: I propose that we hold the conference on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 2 PM in my courtroom, which is Room 24A in the Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. If that date and time do not work, please propose some thing else, as long as it is prior to October 19. By the close of business on October 18, I want to have a schedule set in stone. ( Status Conference set for 10/12/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Colleen McMahon.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/6/2021) (va)

February 9, 2022

Filing 347 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting (342) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; granting (192) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; granting (200) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07961-CM; granting (199) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; granting (205) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; granting (206) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; granting (194) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; granting (186) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08042-CM; granting (193) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; granting (196) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; granting (183) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08139-CM; granting (172) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08258-CM; granting (191) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM; granting (140) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08548-CM; granting (140) M otion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08557-CM; granting (145) Motion for Leave to Appeal in case 7:21-cv-08566-CM. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted without opposition. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/9/2022) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

January 7, 2022

Filing 301 ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING DEBTORS' AND ALLIED PARTIES' MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY granting (294) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (282) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (284) Motion fo r Certificate of Appealability; granting (286) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; granting (150) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (158) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; granting (160) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (168) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-0796 1-CM; granting (159) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (161) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (167) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; granting (165) Motion for Certificate of Appeal ability; granting (167) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (173) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; granting (166) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (168) Motion for Certificate of App ealability; granting (174) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; granting (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (156) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; granting (146) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (148) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08042-CM; granting (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (160) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; granting (155) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (1 57) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (164) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; granting (143) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (145) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (151) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08139-CM; granting (132) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (134) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (140) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in cas e 7:21-cv-08258-CM; granting (150) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (158) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM; granting (100) Motion for Certifi cate of Appealability; granting (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (108) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08548-CM; granting (99) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (101) Motion for Certi ficate of Appealability; granting (107) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08557-CM; granting (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (104) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; granting (111) Motion for Ce rtificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08566-CM. So the motion for a certificate of appealability is granted, conditioned on the following: the parties seeking to appeal this court's decision and order vacating confirmation of the plan have until January 17, 2022, to make an application to the Second Circuit for an appeal, and that motion must include a request that the appeal be considered on an expedited basis, given the urgency of the opioid crisis and the importance of the issue to the resolution of this case. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. The Clerk is directed to remove the motions at 282, 284, 286, and 294 from the court's list of open motions.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/7/2022) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

January 3, 2022

Filing 287 ORDER with respect to (282) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (284) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (286) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; with respect to (150) Mot ion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; with respect to (160) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (162) Motion for Certificate of Appealabil ity in case 7:21-cv-07961-CM; with respect to (159) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (161) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; with respect to (165) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; wit h respect to (167) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; with respect to (166) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (168) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; with respec t to (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (156) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; with respect to (146) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (148) Motion for Certificat e of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08042-CM; with respect to (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (154) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; with respect to (155) Motion for Certificate of App ealability; with respect to (157) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; with respect to (143) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (145) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08139- CM; with respect to (132) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (134) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08258-CM; with respect to (150) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (152) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM; with respect to (100) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08548-CM; with respect to (99) Motion for Cert ificate of Appealability; with respect to (101) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08557-CM; with respect to (102) Motion for Certificate of Appealability; with respect to (104) Motion for Certificate of Appealability in case 7:21-cv-08566-CM. Because of the importance of the issues raised by the motions for certification (Dkt. Nos. 282, 284, 286), any party that opposes certification of the court's order for immediate appeal to the Second Circuit must file a brief explaining the reasons for opposition no later than Thursday, January 6, at 5 PM. The court plans to rule on the motion on an expedited basis this Friday (no reply will be necessary).. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 1/3/2022) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

December 16, 2021

Filing 280 DECISION AND ORDER ON APPEAL: For the foregoing reasons, the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order and related Advance Order must be vacated. This decision leaves on the table a number of critically important issues that were briefed and arg ued on appeal principal among them, whether the Section 10.7 Shareholder Release can or should be approved on the peculiar facts of this case, assuming all the other legal challenges to their validity were resolved in Debtors' favor. But suffic ient unto the day. This and the other issues raised by the parties can be addressed if they need to be addressed - which is to say, if this ruling is reversed. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. This is a written opinion. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/16/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

December 3, 2021

Filing 237 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS denying (216) Motion for Sanctions in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM. Pro se appellant Ellen Isaacs, on Behalf of Patrick Ryan Wroblewski, filed a motion for sanctions against Davis Polk, dated November 25, 2021, seekin g $17 billion in sanctions. (Dkt. No. 216). Davis Polk filed a response to this motion on November 30, 2021. (Dkt. No. 232). For the reasons set forth in the Debtors' response (id.), the Court agrees that the motion is meritless and should be DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close the motion at Docket Number 216.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/3/2021) BY ECF TO ALL PARTIES Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

December 1, 2021

Filing 234 SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING: At the close of argument yesterday I invited the parties to weigh in in writing on a question I raised at the end of the day. Because it had been a long day, and because we had discussed so much, the question was inel egantly phrased. The issue is this: In Metromedia, the Second Circuit cautioned against the approval of a release of third-party claims against a non-debtor because the granting of such releases is subject to abuse. And in Manville III, the Circuit indicated that the possibility of abuse was heightened in situations where the non-debtors condition their financial contribution to the debtor's estate on such releases. In re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52, 66 (2d Cir. 2008). From 1995-2007 , Purdue only "upstreamed" enough money to the Sacklers to allow them to pay taxes and retain a relatively modest dividend for themselves. According to information provided by the Debtor, the Sacklers used 90% of Purdue's upstream ed earnings were used to pay. taxes; just 10% of those distributions were retained by the family. Purdue kept the rest of its earnings in treasury. From 2008-2018, this changed. During that period only 44% of the money that Purdue upstreame d to the Sacklers was needed to pay taxes on Purdue's earnings. 56% of those distributions were retained by the family. This change - regardless of what occasioned it -- resulted in Purdue's having far less in its treasury when it decl ared bankruptcy than would have been the case had the family adhered to the prior distribution pattern. I am struggling with whether this is something that a court can/should take into account in deciding whether the releases on which the Sacklers co nditioned their financial contribution to the Debtors' estate are "abusive" in the Metromedia/Manville III sense - especially in light of evidence in the record that the Sacklers were concerned about litigation risk during those later years and were being advised to adopt an "aggressive" plan of cash distribution during that period. I can't find any guidance in prior cases because, as far as I can tell, nothing remotely similar happened in any prior case. And as I t old you yesterday, I don't think this has anything to do with whether the distributions to the Sacklers qualify as fraudulent conveyances. I would very much appreciate your weighing in on this issue, both on its merits and on what it might mean in terms of the need for a remand to Judge Drain. As to the latter question, would your answer be different if there were a Stern v. Marshall problem (which is different from whether there is a subject matter jurisdiction problem - I think the Debtor has pretty much resolved that issue to my satisfaction)? Finally, while I doubt that there is much of anything that anyone has to say on the statutory authorization issue that has not already been said, if, after yesterday's argument, you have thought of some new argument, feel free to bring it to my attention. I don't need (or want) additional briefing on any other issue. I would appreciate having your thoughts by next Monday morning at 9 AM at the latest. I would like to promise you an opinion next week, but I simply cannot, although I will try. Please bring me up to date on the various deadlines that are presently in force. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 12/1/2021) BY ECF TO ALL PARTIESFiled In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

November 29, 2021

Filing 227 NOTICE. There will be a "LISTEN ONLY" number at which people who are not at the courthouse can listen to tomorrow's oral argument: 888-363-4749, access code 9054506. This number can be used by attorneys who are not coming to the cour t house, as well as member of the press (although we are saving a few seats in my courtroom and in our overflow space for press) and public. This line will be muted; it may not be used for any party to appear remotely. Participants dialing in are reminded that video or audio recording of court proceedings is prohibited by law. The pro se appellants who will be appearing remotely should dial in to the private number that was sent to them separately by email. Do not dial into the listen only number in the first paragraph of this notice, or you will not be able to present your argument to the court. We have also obtained a second overflow courtroom for non-speaking lawyers and members of the public. The overflow rooms are 23A and 15A. As you might imagine, demand for overflow space in connection with the Maxwell trial has made it impossible to obtain any more space, despite our best efforts. I am grateful to the District Executive and his staff for their efforts to make as much space available to us as possible. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/29/21) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (yv)

November 22, 2021

Filing 197 LOGISTICS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: The pmpose of this order is to provide logistics for oral arguments are scheduled for 9:00 AM on November 30, 2021, in courtroom 24A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Court House at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. On ly those with a speaking role should appear in person for oral argument. Non-speaking counsel and members of the public are invited attend the hearing in an overflow courtroom (with limited capacity) at Room 23A. Seating is first come, first serve. C e1tain pro se appellants have requested to appear remotely. The pro se patties who wish to appear remotely will be sent a private dial-in line by email, to the email the Court has on record. Pro se parties who wish to appear in person in Courtroom 24 A are still permitted to appear in person should they choose (they are not obligated to appear remotely but may, as requested). A reminder that the Court has previously set forth the following schedule and expects the parties to be prepared to argue the case within these limits (see Dkt. No. 140): Oral argument will begin at 9:00 AM. Appellants have from 9:00-11:15 to present argument. Pro se appellants have from 11:15-11:30. We will break for lunch from 11:30-12:30. Appellees have from 12 :30-2:45 to present their argument. The Court has from 3:00-4:00 for its own purposes (i.e., hearing rebuttal or asking questions). Oral argument ends at 4:00 PM. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/22/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

November 17, 2021

Filing 171 QUESTION FOR COUNSEL: Counsel, rather than continue to look for a needle in the haystack that is your record, I will simply ask you the following: is there, anywhere in this massive record, information comparable to that contained in the Declarati on of Richard Collura about the decade PRIOR to January 1, 2008? In particular, I am looking for information that would correlate with Mr. Collura' s paragraph 12 - specifically, (i) the amount of Total Net Cash Distributions Paid to or for the Benefit of the Affiliated Entities and/or Taxing Authorities during any period prior to January 1, 2008, and (ii) the amount of any such Net Cash Distributions that was paid in taxes, as opposed to being distributed to the various Sackler entities. I f you could either point me to the right place or confirm that there is no such information in the record, I would be most grateful. The briefs are, as predicted, uniformly excellent and very thought provoking. My list of questions is growing longer, so I look forward to meeting with you on November 30. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/17/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSELFiled In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

November 10, 2021

Filing 140 SCHEDULE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT: Counsel, after listening to your session before the very indulgent Judge Drain yesterday, I think I had better set some rules for our oral argument on November 30, as I intend to be much less indulgent. We will begin at 9 :00 AM and proceed as follows: Appellants to have from 9:00-11: 15 to present argument. We will program a short break into that period. You can divide the time as you would like. But at 11: 15, appellants are done. The figurative little red light goe s off and everyone sits down. Just like the Court of Appeals. I will hear the pro se litigants from 11: 15-11 :30. They will be appearing remotely. We will break for lunch from 11 :30-12:30. I realize that is on the early side, but we have a shortage of court reporters and they will need a significant break. So will I. Debtors and the other plan proponents have from 12:30-2:45 to present their argument. Again, we will program a short break into that time; and again, you can divide the time as y ou wish. And again, the little red light goes off at 2:45 and everyone sits down. I don't necessarily want reply argument/rebuttal. I want an hour at the end, from 3:00- 4:00, for my own purposes. I may ask to hear rebuttal; I may simply want to ask additional questions. You can anticipate a hot bench; my clerks and I are deeply immersed in the record and the relevant cases. In fact, on Monday, November 29, I will probably send out some questions that you should be prepared to address. At 4 :00 PM, we will be through with oral argument. We will adhere strictly to these time limits. You should plan your arguments accordingly. I don't need a lot of exposition or background at oral argument. The briefs I have read are excellent and se t out appellants' positions quite well. I have no reason to believe that the Debtors' briefs and those of their allies will be any less thorough or effective in presenting their position. There are fascinating legal issues to work through a nd that is how we should spend most of our time together. Furthermore, it is not my impression that there is much dispute over Judge Drain's findings of fact; it seems to be his conclusions of law that divide the parties. But since appellants ar e arguing that the Bankruptcy Court lacks subject matter or constitutional jurisdiction over certain aspects of the Confirmation Order, they should be prepared to argue to me as though Judge Drain's findings of fact and conclusions of law in tho se respects were a Report and Recommendation to the district court. Appellees should be prepared to respond accordingly. While I see that there is a little extra time cushion after yesterday's proceedings, I probably won't be able to take a dvantage of it. I am starting a two week criminal trial on Tuesday, December 7, and I have a full calendar on Monday, December 6. So while it is not impossible that that you will have to wait until shortly before December 20 for a decision, it is hig hly unlikely. If l can get a decision out before I have to start my criminal trial, I will do so. I certainly intend to try. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 11/10/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL

October 21, 2021

Filing 75 ORDER CONSOLIDATING NEWLY-DOCKETED APPEALS AND ADDRESSING OTHER MATTERS: 1. I received three new assignments from the Assignment Committee this week: the long-awaited appeal by the State of Vermont has finally been docketed, as have two pro se app eals. Those three actions - 21 cv 8548, 8557 and 8566 - are hereby consolidated with all other pending appeals under the master number 21 cv 7532. Appellants are on the same schedule for briefing imposed by the court - which makes the appellants' ; briefs due tomorrow. I take it on faith that Vermont is aware of the schedule and will be prepared to file a brief tomorrow. If the prose appellants arc filing briefs on appeal, they can have until Friday, October 29, 2021. If anyone knows of any o ther anticipated appeal, please let me know as soon as possible. 2. I am getting caught up as fast as I can, but friends, I need a glossary. You all talk in abbreviations (NOAT, DMP) and I am spending as much time trying to figure out what those abbr eviations mean (I assume NOAT is Net Operating Asset Trust, and I think DMP means Distributing and Manufacturing Parties - please correct me if I am wrong) as I am reading transcript. Would the Debtors please assemble a master list of abbreviations t hat have been used in this case to save me a little time? 3. I just want to advise the parties that I remain more than theoretically interested in exactly what kinds of opioid-related claims have been or could be asse1ied against persons or corporati ons covered by the Shareholder Release at issue on this appeal who are not themselves officers, directors or agents of one or more of the Debtor corporations. I hope that in your briefing, but certainly by the time of oral argument, you can identify for me some claims (preferably actual claims, but if not then hypothetical claims) as to which the defendant would have no claim on the Debtors' estates, but which are being released under the challenged third-party release. 4. Thinking ahead to November 3 0: before I impose an oral argument schedule on the parties I will listen to your suggestions. However, heed all of the following: there will be only one day of oral argument, limited to six hours total - three hours for ALL appellants, t hree hours for appellees. I will have read all of your briefs and digested all of your written arguments. Everyone will want to talk; everyone cannot talk. Think carefully about how you want to allocate your time, because if people start to get redun dant I will cut you off. Finally, the week before argument I will very likely give you some idea about what issues I want to talk about - what would be helpful to me in crafting an opinion - and I hope you will tailor your remarks accordingly. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/21/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSELFiled In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

October 18, 2021

Filing 69 ORDER CORRECTING PRIOR DECISION denying (64) Motion for Reconsideration re (64 in 7:21-cv-07532-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - UNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE U NITED STATES TRUSTEES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL. filed by U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07966-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum an d Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07969-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarificat ion of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; denying (53) Motion for Reconsideration re (64 in 7:21-cv- 07532-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - UNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL. filed by U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07966-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pend ing Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07969-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergenc y Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; denying (53) Motion for Reconsideration re (64 in 7:21-cv-07532-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - UNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR CLARIFICA TION OF THE MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEES EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING APPEAL. filed by U.S. Trustee William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07966-CM) MOTION for Reconsideration - Unit ed States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington, (53 in 7:21-cv-07969-CM) MOTION for Reco nsideration - United States Trustees Motion for Clarification of the Memorandum and Order Denying Without Prejudice the United States Trustees Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal. filed by William K. Harrington in case 7:21-cv-07969- CM. I received over the weekend a motion from the U.S. Trustee for "clarification" of the court's order dated October 14, 2021. (Docket No. 64). In addition to its request for clarification, the U.S. Trustee asks the court to order t he Debtors to provide this court with a weekly written accounting of any activities that it takes between now and the date when this court decides the pending appeal- presumably so Appellants can assess, in light of the doctrine of equitable mootness , whether or not the time to move anew for a stay pending appeal has come. I confess error. I had believed, following our lengthy conference of last week, that the only preparatory actions being taken by the Debtors prior between now and the Effecti ve Date were being undertaken pursuant to the Advance Order. Apparently I was mistaken in that belief; some actions that would allow for quick effectuation of the Plan are being undertaken, or may be undertaken, pursuant to the authority of Paragraph 8 of the Confirmation Order. I had intended for the stipulation on which my denial of a stay pending appeal was conditioned to include all such actions, regardless of which Order authorized them; in my effort to be quite precise, I caused the order to be erroneous. I therefore correct the order so that the first full paragraph on page 13 reads as follows: as further set forth herein. This is entirely my fault, and I apologize, especially to Appellees and others who signed with alacrity a stipu lation that apparently does not cover all that I intended it to cover. (Docket No. 62). I emphasize this is a correction- not a clarification, and certainly not reconsideration. It is what I intended all along. And I think all parties know that. The U.S. Trustee asks that this stipulation cover criminal sentencing as well as actions taken pursuant to the Advance and Confirmation Orders. I am mystified by this request. The last time I looked, criminal sentencing was an action performed by a j udge, not by the defendant being sentenced. Moreover, the judge acts pursuant to her Article III authority and the criminal laws of the United States, not as a result of any Plan of Reorganization confirmed by a Bankruptcy Court. So I do not und erstand how Purdue's being sentenced could be taxed to the Debtor as an action taken in furtherance of the Plan for equitable mootness purposes. The U.S. Trustee does not offer any explanation for this aspect of his request. The fact that the Effective Date cannot occur until eight days after the sentencing does not make the sentencing an action undertaken pursuant to the Plan, or the Advance Order or the Confirmation Order. And should the judge decide to order restitution pursuant to the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act, she will be doing so on the authority of 18 U.S.C. § 3363A. I thus see no reason to grant the request; I do not even understand it. As for the request for weekly updates: that is an entirely new request for relief. It is denied.. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/18/2021) BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (kv)

October 14, 2021

Filing 60 ORDER ON THE PENDING MOTIONS TO INTERVENE BY THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF NAS CHILDREN, THE MULTI-STATE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES GROUP, AND THE AD HOC GROUP OF INDIVIDUAL VICTIMS OF PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL denying (44) Motion to Intervene; granting (46) M otion to Intervene; granting (48) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07532-CM; granting (31) Motion to Intervene; granting (33) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07585-CM; granting (39) Motion to Intervene; granting (41) Motion to Intervene i n case 7:21-cv-07961-CM; granting (37) Motion to Intervene; granting (39) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07962-CM; granting (41) Motion to Intervene; granting (43) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07966-CM; granting (40) Motion to Interv ene; granting (42) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-07969-CM; granting (33) Motion to Intervene; granting (35) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08034-CM; granting (32) Motion to Intervene; granting (34) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv- 08042-CM; granting (33) Motion to Intervene; granting (35) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08049-CM; granting (36) Motion to Intervene; granting (38) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08055-CM; granting (30) Motion to Intervene; granting ( 32) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08139-CM; granting (15) Motion to Intervene; granting (17) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08258-UA; granting (27) Motion to Intervene; granting (29) Motion to Intervene in case 7:21-cv-08271-CM. After reviewing the motions and the accompanying submissions, it seems clear that both the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group and the Ad Hoc Group of Individual Victims of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. argued the issues that are being contested on appea l before the Bankruptcy Court. Their intervention motions are, therefore, granted, as I said they would be at the conference, and they shall henceforth be deemed Appellees in all the pending appeals. The Ad Hoc Committee of NAS Children admits that i t did not argue the contested issuesbelow, so its motion for leave to intervene as appellee is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the motions at Dockets 44, 46 and 48 in the Master Case at 21-cv-7532. BY ECF TO ALL PARTIES (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/14/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 7:21-cv-07532-CM et al. (jca)

October 13, 2021

Filing 55 SCHEDULING ORDER AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING APPEALS: The Court, having convened a scheduling conference in these pending bankruptcy appeals, enters the following schedule: Appellants' briefs are due October 22, 2021; Appellees' briefs are du e November 12, 2021; Appellants' rely briefs are due November 19, 2021; Oral arguments are scheduled for 10:00 AM on November 30, 2021, in courtroom 24A of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Court House at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. As w ith the recent scheduling conference, only lawyers who have a speaking role should appear in person for oral argument. Non-speaking counsel and members of the public are invited to be present in an overflow courtroom (with limited capacity) or to dial in to the conference at the following number: 888-363-4749, access code 9054506. Video or audio recording of the proceedings is prohibited by law. The Court further orders that the above-captioned appeals be administratively consolidated u nder the first-filed appeal at case number 21-cv-7532, which shall be the Master Case Number. All further filings by the court will be docketed under the Master Case Number; filings peculiar to any appeal will be docketed under both the Master Cas e Number and the individual appeal Case Number. Any additional appeals from the Confirmation Order and/or the Advance Order in the matter of In re: Purdue Pharma, L.P. that are filed but not yet docketed will automatically be deemed subject to th is order and administratively consolidated with the appeals listed in the caption of this order. (Appellant Brief due by 10/22/2021., Appellant Reply Brief due by 11/19/2021., Appellee Brief due by 11/12/2021., Oral Argument set for 11/30/2021 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Colleen McMahon.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/13/2021) (jca)

October 10, 2021

Filing 29 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PENDING ARGUMENT ON THEUNITED STATES TRUSTEES MOTION FOR A STAY(FILED AT DOCKET # 21 CV 7532; 21 CV 7961; 21 CV 7966; 21 CV 7969; 21 CV 8034; 21 CV 8042; 21 CV 8049; 21 CV 8055; 21 CV 8139McMahon, J.:The United States Trustee has anticipated by two days one of the items on MY agenda for our conference on Tuesday, that being the question of a stay pending appeal. This court is all too familiar with the doctrine of equitable mootness as applied in the Second Circuit, as it has upended my ability to decide at least one previous bankruptcy appeal. I am also aware of the fact that the issue is presently under consideration at the United States Supreme Court, which will resolve it one way or th e other this term. I have no intention of allowing the critically important issues on appeal to be equitably mooted, and I had intended to ask the parties about their views on a stay when we got together. Now that I have a formal motion, I intend to resolve the question ON TUESDAY, with oral argument. As long as I have jurisdiction to enter a stay pending appeal I fully intend to do so, unless some opponent comes up with an argument that I cannot presently anticipate. (though I will listen to wh at anyone has to say). The stay will be conditioned on adherence to an expedited briefing schedule for the appeal. I am given to understand that the automatic stay following confirmation has already expired. Accordingly, sufficient cause appearing t herefor, I hereby enter this temporary restraining order staying the effectiveness and implementation of the Bankruptcy Courts orders of September 15 and 17, 2021, from which appeals have been taken to this court (the Advance Order and the Confirmati on Order, respectively), as well as oral confirmation order dated September 1, 2021, and any other orders of which I might not be aware that are implicated by the pendency of these appeals. We will take this matter up on the merits on Tuesday. This order shall be docketed in all pending appeals. BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/10/2021). (mde) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/12/2021: # 1 order) (mde).

October 7, 2021

Filing 24 ORDER TO ALL COUNSEL: The deluge of letters has begun. It stops now. I will not allow this matter to be litigated by letter. So stop writing them. I am not going to read them. I am a stickler for proper procedure, especially in a case like t his one. I need a list of all issues that you want addressed to be sent to chambers by 9 AM on Tuesday, October 12, in advance of our afternoon session. Any issue that has been raised by letter and any issue that you are th inking of raising by letter between now and Tuesday, must be on that list, or we will not be discussing it on Tuesday. Since the issue of who is properly deemed an appellee has been raised, I will expect briefs to be filed by Tuesday morning on that question. Quite a few entities seem to have participated in the confirmation hearing, but this is an appeal and there are rules about who is a party to an appeal. I note that Advisory Opinion 100 iden tified certain entities (such as the UCC) as "parties" to a bankruptcy proceeding for conflict of interest purpose; if there is authority for the proposition that those entities either are or are not properly listed as appellees in this matter (assuming they did not file a notice of appeal), then I expect you to direct me to it. But not by letter. In the future, any applications for rulings from the court must be made by notice of motion accompanied by a short (and I mean short) brief. If this is going to be a frequent occurrence, I will come up with rules that must be followed to bring issues to my attention. But it should not be a frequent occurrence. This is an appeal, folks, not a second confirmation hearing. I am obviously expecting a number of amicus motions, and we will set a timetable on Tuesday for the making of such motions and for very quick responses thereto. What I want to discuss on Tuesday are: how soo n we can get the principal issue on appeal briefed and argued, and what other aspects of Judge Drain's order are being appealed and by whom. I would also like to know whether anyone is planning to try to move this appeal directly to the Second Circuit (we read the press too, you know). Everything else, frankly, is collateral. I hope you have a pleasant holiday weekend. Please remember that the court is closed on Monday. I will see you Tuesday afternoon. B y the way, while we are trying to find an "over flow" courtroom, there are many matters on the calendar here at the Moynihan Courthouse on Tuesday, and so far we have been unable to find one. I expect that access for those not actively participating in the conference will be by phone. We will keep you informed. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/7/2021) (js)

October 6, 2021

Filing 13 ORDER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: I propose that we hold the conference on Tuesday, October 12, 2021, at 2 PM in my courtroom, which is Room 24A in the Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street. If that date and time do not work, please propose some thing else, as long as it is prior to October 19. By the close of business on October 18, I want to have a schedule set in stone. ( Status Conference set for 10/12/2021 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 24A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Colleen McMahon.) (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 10/6/2021) (va)

Search for this case: In Re: Purdue Pharma L.P.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Available Case Documents