> this is the first I've heard of that decision
That's because it's not true. The deal was not stopped. It was only delayed, but I wouldn't place blame on parent for getting this wrong; the media has done their best to imply otherwise.
That's because it's not true. The deal was not stopped. It was only delayed, but I wouldn't place blame on parent for getting this wrong; the media has done their best to imply otherwise.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and stayed the lower court order pending their own decision. What they agreed to hear:
> The parties are directed to brief and argue the
> following question: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a
> court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under
> Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes
> claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties,
> without the claimants’ consent.
You're right that they haven't thrown out the deal, but they've prevented it from going forward without further scrutiny as the Sacklers and their lobbyist thralls would have wanted.