Last November, in In re LTL Mgmt. LLC, 1 Bankruptcy Judge Craig Whitley in Charlotte, North Carolina, ordered LTL Management LLC’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case moved to New Jersey after finding that LTL Management had used the “Texas Two-Step” to manufacture jurisdiction in North Carolina improperly. LTL Management is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) and a defendant in thousands of talc-related tort claim lawsuits.

In In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., 1 U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the bankruptcy court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases—namely for the benefit of the Sackler family, which owns Purdue.

A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” While Congress has general authority to establish a bankruptcy system, bankruptcy laws must be “uniform.” But not every aspect of the bankruptcy system is the same across every judicial district.

For the second time in four weeks, a U.S. district court questioned the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue nonconsensual third-party releases as part of a plan of reorganization.

For the second time in four weeks, a U.S. District Court has questioned the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue non-consensual third-party releases as part of a plan of reorganization. On Jan. 13, 2022, the Eastern District of Virginia vacated the confirmation order in the Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc. (f/k/a Ascena Retail Group, Inc.) chapter 11 cases on the grounds that the plan contained impermissible non-consensual third-party releases. Patterson, et al. v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc., Civ. No. 3:21cv167 (DJN) (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022).

On Dec. 16, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the Bankruptcy Court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases — namely for the benefit of the Sackler family who owns Purdue. In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case No. 7:21-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021).

On Nov. 11, 2021, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig Whitley in Charlotte, North Carolina ordered to move LTL Management LLC’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case to New Jersey after finding that LTL Management had used the “Texas Two-Step” to manufacture jurisdiction in North Carolina improperly. LTL Management is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and a defendant in thousands of talc-related tort claim lawsuits. In re LTL Mgmt. LLC, No. 21-30589, 2021 BL 439798 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021).

Key Points

Courts frequently dismiss creditor appeals of bankruptcy confirmation orders as equitably moot. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently departed from this historic practice. In reversing a District Court determination that confirmation of a plan rendered a creditor’s appeal equitably moot, the Eighth Circuit held that motions to dismiss for equitable mootness should be “rarely granted,” and it reversed and remanded the lower courts’ dismissal of a creditor’s appeal of a Plan Confirmation Order on equitable mootness grounds.

The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.