Following the Supreme Court’s June 27, 2024, decision in Purdue, which held that nonconsensual third-party releases are impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy judges across multiple jurisdictions have been grappling with what constitutes a “consensual” release.
Bankruptcy Judges Struggle With Meaning of ‘Consensual Release’ Post-Purdue
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Purdue, which held that nonconsensual third-party releases are impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy judges across multiple jurisdictions have been grappling with what constitutes a “consensual” release. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024). This article analyzes how different judges have defined “consent” and provides guidance on best practices for structuring third-party releases.
By
Seth H. Lieberman and Amanda M. Schaefer
This premium content is locked for The Bankruptcy Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Bankruptcy Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
