Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Part Two, we continue the analysis by evaluating two constitutional issues arising from third-party releases: whether creditor consent to be bound by a third-party release is required to satisfy the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and whether bankruptcy courts have constitutional authority to issue final orders granting third-party releases in a plan of reorganization under Stern v. Marshall.
In the April 2023 issue, we published Part One of this article examining the role of third-party releases in successful Chapter 11 reorganizations. That article evaluated whether and to what extent third-party releases are permissible to release nondebtors from liabilities that are intertwined with the debtor’s liabilities. That analysis revealed an important circuit split in which the majority of circuits allow third-party releases in limited circumstances based on factual findings supporting a different multi-factor analysis in each jurisdiction. However, a minority of courts — specifically, the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits — disallow nonconsensual third-party releases entirely. We noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on this issue, and suggested that either the Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress should intervene to resolve the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the use of third-party releases as a tool for resolving complex Chapter 11 restructurings.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions
By Michael L. Cook
Recent appellate decisions reflect a distaste for appeals from bankruptcy court sanction orders. A split Fourth Circuit even refused to hear such an appeal. Other courts tend to limit sanctions or, alternatively, accept a bankruptcy judge’s findings under a stringent “abuse of discretion” standard.
Supreme Court’s Rejection of Purdue Pharma Settlement Redefines Releases In Chapter 11
By Angelo Castaldi
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its most anticipated bankruptcy decision in recent memory. In a 5-4 decision entered June 27, the Supreme Court struck down the nonconsensual third-party releases. Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code authorized the nonconsensual release or discharge of claims of opioid victims against the Sacklers, who were not debtors themselves.
Ninth Circuit: Debt In Asset Case Is Nondischargeable If Debtor Fails to Properly Schedule the Debt
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Geoffrey A. Heaton
In a recent published decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a previously unresolved question in that circuit: whether a debtor’s failure to properly schedule a debt in an “asset case” renders the debt nondischargeable.
Is the Rule Preventing Bankruptcy Judges from Appointing Special Masters Outdated?
By Mark B. Conlan and Noel L. Hillman
Rule 9031 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure prevents all bankruptcy judges, and, if broadly interpreted, any federal judge hearing bankruptcy cases and proceedings, from appointing special masters. The rule has not been amended since its adoption in 1983. It is outdated and should be repealed or amended to accord with the reality of today’s complex Chapter 11 cases.