In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question:

The United States Supreme Court agreed today to review a Fourth Circuit decision that denied an insurer standing to object to an asbestos producer’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan, on the basis that the insurer’s interests were not affected by the plan. The case provides the high court with an opportunity to resolve a recurring issue in mass tort bankruptcies which has split the circuits.

The absolute priority rule [Fn. 1] has been a problem for businesses in bankruptcy—for a very long time! The rule dates back to at least 1899, when the U.S. Supreme Court prevents certain shareholder actions “until the interests of unsecured creditors have been preserved.” [Fn. 2]

Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has followed a long and relatively straight road for the absolute priority rule. And the rule has shown staying power, along that road.

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or the “Court”) released its widely-anticipated decision in Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States released its highly anticipated decision in William K. Harrington, United States Trustee, Region 2, Petitioner v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al. (Purdue). At issue was whether the U.S. bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to confirm a plan that provided for releases in favour of non-debtor parties, including parties providing a significant monetary contribution in support of the plan itself.

They say every man needs protection, they say that every man must fall.¹

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The issue before the Court was whether the Bankruptcy Code permits nondebtors to obtain a release of third-party claims through a debtor’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. An issue that had divided the Circuit Courts of Appeals. The nondebtors set to receive releases under Purdue’s plan were members of the Sackler family — the owners of Purdue Pharma — and their other entities.

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Highlights

Long-anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision in Purdue Pharma shakes up the scope of bankruptcy releases

Insurers get increased ability to participate in bankruptcy cases

Overpayment of bankruptcy fees is not refundable to Chapter 11 debtors