Interested in training for your team? Click here to learn more

Bankruptcy Litigation Roadmap: Obtaining Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases Through Sale and Settlement

A live 90-minute CLE video webinar with interactive Q&A

This program is included with the Strafford CLE Pass. Click for more information.
This program is included with the Strafford All-Access Pass. Click for more information.

Thursday, July 10, 2025

1:00pm-2:30pm EDT, 10:00am-11:30am PDT

Early Registration Discount Deadline, Friday, June 20, 2025

or call 1-800-926-7926

This CLE webinar will discuss whether Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204, 144 (2024), applies only to plans of reorganization or also limits nonconsensual third-party releases from being approved in other types of settlement or sale agreements routinely approved by bankruptcy courts, and why or why not. The program will review In re Hopeman Brothers Inc. No. 24-32428 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Jan. 24, 2025), and In re Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Center, N.Y., No. 20-12345 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2024), ECF No. 3465, in which the bankruptcy courts approved nonconsensual third-party releases as part of insurer settlements with the debtors. The panel will explore arguments that the subject nonconsensual third-party releases contravened Purdue, each court's reasoning in favor of approving nonconsensual third-party releases, the key facts and competing interests that controlled or that might have changed the outcome, and how insurers and debtors might leverage the holdings and rationales in other contexts to either reanimate nonconsensual third-party releases or to show that Purdue is to be applied beyond confirmation.

Description

Although Purdue was a seminal decision that changed the benefits and mechanics of resolving litigation through bankruptcy, its scope is not unlimited. The bankruptcy courts in Hopeman Brothers and other similar cases have found Purdue inapplicable to Section 363 sales and to certain settlements approved pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, in part because Purdue appears to be at odds with Section 363's promise of a "free and clear" sale. Yet the proponents of settlements have been careful to show that the relief was narrowly tailored "to the facts presented" and a valid exercise of the debtor's business judgment.

Nonetheless, Hopeman will not be the last word. It was an asbestos case, which enjoys special status under the Bankruptcy Code, even if the transaction at issue was a standard "buy back" of insurance coverage. Courts are wary of allowing parties to bypass confirmation and achieve through a sale what they cannot get through a plan. Some courts have drawn distinctions between discharging or releasing claims of third parties and liquidation of claims, for example In re Bird Global Inc., et al., Case No. 23-20514-CLC. Whether such distinctions will withstand scrutiny is to be seen. Although Purdue did limit itself to addressing nonconsensual third-party releases through confirmation and 11 U.S.C. 1123(b)(6), different facts may well produce different results.

Listen as the experienced panel of bankruptcy lawyers unpacks just how much the parties can limit Purdue to the confirmation context and the ability of lawyers to leverage Section 363 and other types of bankruptcy relief to indirectly resurrect nonconsensual third-party releases.

READ MORE

Outline

  1. Introduction
  2. Currently prevailing rationales for limiting releases beyond confirmation
  3. Currently prevailing rationales for limiting Purdue
  4. Critical facts and procedural posture of recent cases
  5. Best practices for securing or limiting releases

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Do decisions allowing nonconsensual third-party releases in sale orders make a distinction with a difference?
  • How broad is too broad for nonconsensual third-party releases in sale orders?
  • Will courts scrutinize releases in sale orders in light of proposed plans?
  • What happens if a creditor opts out of the plan release?

Faculty

Bair, Jesse
Jesse J. Bair

Founding Partner
Burns Bair

Mr. Bair is a founding partner at Burns Bair LLP. He devotes the majority of his practice to working with sexual-abuse...  |  Read More

Prescott, Adam
Adam R. Prescott

Shareholder
Bernstein Shur Sawyer & Nelson

With experience in a broad range of industries, including healthcare, hospitality, food and beverage, manufacturing,...  |  Read More

Attend on July 10

Early Discount (through 06/20/25)

Cannot Attend July 10?

Early Discount (through 06/20/25)

You may pre-order a recording to listen at your convenience. Recordings are available 48 hours after the webinar. Strafford will process CLE credit for one person on each recording. All formats include course handouts.

To find out which recorded format will provide the best CLE option, select your state:

CLE On-Demand Video