On June 6, the United States Supreme Court decided Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., No. 22-1079, holding that insurers with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims are “parties in interest” under 11 U.S.C. § 1109(b) that “may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., et al. (Case No. 22-1079) (“Kaiser Gypsum”). Reversing the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 60 F.4th 73 (4th Cir.

Opinion has potential implications for a broader set of parties with potential liabilities affected by a Chapter 11 process.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion is Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., Case No. 22-1079, Decided June 6, 2024.

Opinion’s Q & A

The Truck Insurance question is this:

• Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” under § 1109(b)?

The Supreme Court’s answer is this:

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124

Today, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow a bankruptcy court to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants.

In a decision that will have substantial impact on the owners of businesses that seek relief in bankruptcy where the business owners themselves seek releases from personal liability, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in an opinion issued Thursday, June 27, 2024. The case arose from the bankruptcy proceedings of drugmaker Purdue Pharma, owned by Sackler family members. The decision potentially exposes the Sackler family members to personal liability relating to Purdue Pharma’s sale of opioid medications.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed confirmation of Purdue Pharma’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan of reorganization on the basis that its non-consensual third-party releases were not permissible. It held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize the inclusion of a release in a plan that effectively seeks to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants. The decision prohibits an approach to global resolution of mass tort litigations that has been utilized in numerous cases over the last 40 years.

Takeaways

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. ____ (2024) holding that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow for the inclusion of non-consensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans. This decision settles a long-standing circuit split on the propriety of such releases and clarifies that a plan may not provide for the release of claims against non-debtors without the consent of the claimants.

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.

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.