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.

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.

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

Last week, in a 5-to-4 decision in the case ofHarrington, United States Trustee, Region 2 v. Purdue Pharma L.P, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ability of bankruptcy courts to order non-consensual third-party releases (i.e., claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties) as part of a Chapter 11 plan.

This article analyses the extent to which dissenting financial creditors are protected under the Indian insolvency regime.

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?