Skip to main content
ABI Journal

Plan Confirmation

Getting (Approximately) to Yes on Nondebtor Releases in Mass Tort Cases After Purdue Pharma

Oct 2024

Bankruptcy Code

Revesting on Discharge in Chapter 13 Can’t Be Mandated, Fourth Circuit Says

Local rules and local standard plans cannot force a chapter 13 debtor to disregard one of the options in Section 1327 and require revesting of estate assets on discharge.

Another Bankruptcy Judge Decided that Sub V Classes with No Votes Aren’t Accepting

Bankruptcy Judge Paul Bonapfel differed with two judges in Houston by holding that a nonaccepting class in Subchapter V means that a plan must be confirmed in cramdown.

Preserving Defensive Setoff Rights Doesn’t Require Filing a Claim, Judge Glenn Says

Defensive setoff rights are not discharged by chapter 11 confirmation, even when no proof of claim was filed.

06
July
2025
Please note that in order to view the content for the Bankruptcy Headlines you must either Sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
06
July
2025
Please note that in order to view the content for the Bankruptcy Headlines you must either Sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Ninth Circuit Employs Equity to Avoid Following the Supreme Court’s Taylor and Schwab

Claiming 100% of FMV didn’t enable debtors to exempt more than the statutory cap when there had been no objection to the exemption claim.

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