On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to discharge creditors’ claims against a non-debtor without the creditors’ consent (except in asbestos cases). The decision in Harrington v.

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson; Kavanaugh for the dissent, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.

At the bottom of the stack in investment fund structures, there are generally “real” assets—things like equity interests in portfolio companies, mortgage loans, commercial receivables, maybe even bricks and mortar. Fund finance transactions, though, are by design crafted to be at several levels removed from such underlying assets. With such ultimate assets remote from the transaction, it may seem to fund finance practitioners that concerns about changes in the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) relating to the nature of collateral assets are just as remote.

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.

In In re Flatbush Rho Mezz LLC, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York allowed a secured creditor to be paid the entirety of a $5 million bond based on a loan with 24% default rate interest that continued to accrue interest during the pendency of an appeal.

Background of the Dispute

One of the three debtors, 85 Flatbush RHO Mezz LLC ("Mezz"), acquired a mixed-use property “with a hotel component” in Brooklyn, New York.

1. Commercial Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filings Have Increased Significantly Year-Over-Year: There has been a significant increase in the number of commercial Chapter 11 cases (larger company filings) in 2024. By way of example, there were 1,894 commercial Chapter 11 filings (including subchapter V filings) during the first quarter of 2024, up 43% from the 1,325 total commercial chapter 11 filings during the first calendar quarter of 2023 according to data provided by Epiq Bankruptcy, the leading provider of U.S. bankruptcy filing data.

The Supreme Court issued a landmark and potentially far-reaching decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124 (“Purdue”), on June 27, 2024. We set forth the facts and our initial observations below, with a more complete description of the decision at the end of this bulletin.

What Did the Court Decide?

Releases of Sackler Family Too Broad and Not Authorized by the Bankruptcy Code

SUMMARY

Here’s a dilemma:

• Should bankruptcy be available as a tool for resolving mass tort cases of all types (like it already is in asbestos contexts)?

Here’s an illustration of the dilemma:

• many tort claimants in the Johnson & Johnson case DO NOT want bankruptcy involved; but
• many tort claimants in the Purdue Pharma case were BEGGING the courts to approve the bankruptcy plan.

How do we solve this dilemma?