I think cases like this are outside the scope of the Corruption Perceptions Index. At least, your wikipedia link describes it as: (*emphasis* mine)
> The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index which ranks countries "by their perceived levels of *public sector corruption*, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.
From skimming the court order, it seems that this is an instance of private sector corruption. In 2004, the Purdue board (which included at least 6 Sackler family members) created a policy to indemnify the board, executives, and some others against any claims/suits/etc. There was a narrow carve-out where a court decision that someone acted in "bad faith" would void the indemnification.
> The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index which ranks countries "by their perceived levels of *public sector corruption*, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.
From skimming the court order, it seems that this is an instance of private sector corruption. In 2004, the Purdue board (which included at least 6 Sackler family members) created a policy to indemnify the board, executives, and some others against any claims/suits/etc. There was a narrow carve-out where a court decision that someone acted in "bad faith" would void the indemnification.