In its brief, Purdue's main contentions are that the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy filed in September puts a freeze on Arizona's case, and that the Bankruptcy Court provides the correct forum to resolve Arizona's fraudulent transfer allegations.
Brnovich and outside counsel William Consovoy attracted a lot of attention and interview requests with the "novel" and "audacious lawsuit". Yesterday's filing is only from Purdue Pharma, and it appears that the Sackler family defendants did not bother to file a brief by the (extended) deadline.
Bankruptcy filings do place an "automatic stay" on legal and collection proceedings, and there is no indication (in the Supreme Court case) that Arizona has asked that stay to be lifted.
Purdue's attorneys also argue that Arizona should have pursued its fraudulent transfer claims in its state courts, rather than trying to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to sit as a trial court. (It notes that Arizona makes the "breezy assertion" that fact-finding would be straightforward.)
In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Arizona noted that many states, governments and organizations were all racing to go after the Purdue/Sackler monies and that the highest court in the land should be the referee. Attorneys General in Ohio, Alaska, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Utah supported Arizona's suit, filing a friend of the court brief.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether Arizona's case may proceed, whether to send the Attorney General to Bankruptcy Court, or some other option.
Earlier this month, AG Brnovich expressed some concerns about the proposed settlement that many states reached with Purdue, stating that the company had "sought to undermine material terms of the deal.”
AZ Law has requested comment from the Attorney General's Office and will update as warranted.