Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.
ABI MEMBERS ONLYABI Membership is required to access the full summary. please log in using your ABI Member credentials.
Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!
Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."
Learn More
With respect to the Court's
With respect to the Court's footnote, I struggle to see on a general level how non-consensual third-party releases are implicated in a sale of estate property (insurance policies) where creditors are enjoined from pursuing claims that are derivative of the debtor's claims against its insurer (rather than direct, e.g., non-debtor claims against the Sackler family). Why not just say the tort claimants' appeal is statutorily moot via 363(m) in a then (and now) permissible 363(b) sale and not bring up Purdue.
"Are we certain that no
"Are we certain that no bankruptcy court will ever confirm such a plan and that an appellate court won’t dismiss the appeal as statutorily moot?"
Would a bankruptcy court try, though? This case seems unusual because of the timing. The sale occurred pre-Purdue, then Purdue happens, then the appeal occurs post-Purdue. There might be a few more cases in the pipeline nationwide that have similar timing.
Going forward, all 363(b) sales will be post-Purdue. Non-consensual releases placed directly in a confirmation plan implicate Purdue. I don't know whether Purdue could be avoided going forward by adding a 363(b) sale as one layer between the releases and the plan.