In the aftermath of Purdue Pharmaceuticals it is clear that non-debtors releases in reorganization plans under chapter 11 and, most likely Chapter 12, require the releases to be "consensual." This invokes general principals of contract law which require, inter alia, consideration for the releases. Insiders, like the Sacklers in Purdue, can contribute cash or equity. Insurers, guarantors, and similar parties can similarly fund the releases. However, it is not clear how administrative persons can contribute "consideration" for releases especially where Secs. 326-31 largely govern types of claims that might be asserted against these persons. The Barton doctrine also provides a framework for asserting claims against many of these persons and an obligation for the court to raise claims against such persons even if her parties in interest do not.
Given the pre-Purdue inclusion of boilerplate provisions in many plans for releases of the various counsel and other case administrators, the issue arises under Purdue whether or not such releases are possible post-Purdue and how that might be obtained if they are possible.
In a post-Purdue world, counsel, other professionals and committees in reorganization cases may well face significant increased exposure to claims and liability where they may not be able to obtain releases for such claims and liability. Strategies to deal with this change are of obvious import to those attendees and those professionals they deal with in the course of reorganization cases, particularly those in which there is dissatisfaction with these individuals' actions. E.g, The Asarco case in which the reorganized debtor sued its predecessor's former counsel.
Business
Suggested Speakers
Leo
Weiss
leoweiss@ecentral.com
Retired, formerly with he U.S. Trustee Program
