In February 2020, as one of several decisions concerning third-party releases (TPRs), a bankruptcy court judge confirmed a reorganization plan and its associated debtor entities which include third-party releases. As part of the plan’s confirmation, the judge noted recent decisions that introduced concerns involving a court’s authority in approving non-consensual (NC) TPRs but applied Third Circuit law and approved TPRs. 

The subject in question and its debtor’s affiliates manage a biopharmaceutical business that creates and sells various pharmaceutical products. Before filing for bankruptcy, the parties faced various lawsuits related to opioid production and medication sales. Trying to settle the lawsuit, the debtors strove towards principal settlement terms connected to stakeholders. Then, in October 2020, the subject filed for Chapter 11 to resolve settlements.

Almost a year later, the debtors suggested a reorganization plan that included several kinds of releases. These releases include:

• Releases from the debtor
• Releases from non-debtor third parties (NDTPs) in which interested as well as claim holders and received a chance to escape TPRs through ballots or forms by selecting a box to not participate
• Opioid claimants nonconsensual releases
• Releases by debtors as well as associated opioid claimant parties

The plan received substantial support from the creditors except for one. The nonconsensual opioid releases and TPRs were the subjects of objections generated by the US Trustee and Rhode Island as well as the TPRs from the US Trustee and Securities Exchange Commission.

The objectors to opioid releases claim that opioid releases lacking consent were over-broad and released individuals who did in any way contribute to reorganization. The US Trustee also claimed that the case lacked jurisdiction to authorize the releases. Additionally, the US trustee claimed that approving these releases would violate due process rights held by the opioid claimants. 

When it came to TPRs including opt-outs (OOs), the TPR objectors claimed the OO feature did not lead to consensual releases. As a result, the court’s requirement of TPRs lacking consent applied to these releases.

The Impact of the Case

The authority and validity of TPRs are receiving an increased amount of focus due to the lack of universal standards. One New York district court and a Virginia district court both invalidated NC TPRs by drawing into question the authority held by bankruptcy courts to approve the releases. In this case, the court approved the TPRs based on Third Circuit precedents.

The question of whether TPRs is a critical issue for stakeholders due to the substantial impact on bankruptcy matter resolutions and creditor recoveries. The common reliance on using TPRs to maximize estate value and improve creditor recoveries and the existing lack of consistency among courts suggest the matter is not currently resolved. In other situations, Congress has revised bankruptcy regulations in consideration of Chapter 11 matters to create rules concerning a debtor’s rights in regards to public policy interests. 

Similar matters have unfolded as Congress has brought up regulations blocking the use of TPRS without written consent by each entity releasing the creditor. As time progresses, it will become clear if these matters are resolved regardless of whether this occurs through federal courts or regulations.

The Court’s Opinion

The judge found following the Third Circuit court’s previous ruling, the judge had the necessary authority to approved non-consensual TPRs because the releases were vital to the debtor’s plan. The judge found that in situations in which releases were not present, settlements critical to the effort could not be effectuated, and without such settlements, success of the plan was unlikely.

The judge ruled that NC releases were adequate because the releases meet the third circuit court’s standard established in a previous case that requires NC TPRs to be vital for fairness.

The court found that NC opioid releases were critical to reformation because the opioid releases were a vital part of settlements and critical to the plan. In concern to the NDs that were released, the court held that the nonconsensual TPRs were critical because the parties were engaged  to such an extent that a lawsuit against them would possibly prove a burden to the debtors.

In regards to fairness, the court found that the NC TPRs were a fair consequence 

for opioid claimants as the associated settlement was negotiated with a large collection of entities representing various interests. Consideration was also provided in connection with the releases through a trust the opioid claimants can utilize to receive compensation. The court discovered that NC opioid releases were adequate in regards to the NDs being released because the debtors provided additional compensation in connection with the releases of NDs. The evidence also shows that it was not likely any material claims for liability against NDs that were waived.

The court weighed various elements in deciding to approve NC TPRs. The court discovered that the “extraordinary nature” of the case as the result of the debtor’s being subject to more than 3,000 lawsuits connected to the opioid products. Additionally, settlement of claims to which releases were a critical part removed the risk of lawsuits to the debtor’s business while making sure that opioid claimants received compensation greater than what would be obtained through legal action. The court discovered that the case was developing during the opioid crisis and that the nature of claims arising from the use of opioids, time was vital. The court discovered it important that the nonconsensual TPRs were supported by the creditor body and that just one creditor disagreed with the releases and did not warrant application of a widespread ban on non-consensual TPRs when releases would have otherwise satisfied requirements. The judge also noted that another option to the plan and releases would receive protection

from costly litigation would not otherwise aid opioid crisis victims but would create substantial lawsuit expenses that would lower the amount of available funds. 

The court overruled arguments raised by third-party release objectors. The court 

found that the OO TPRs were mutually agreed on. In deciding this, the judge considered notification of the OO TPRs and determined sufficient evidence that the parties classified as debtors made every action possible to make sure the parties performing the releasing received notice in various ways that clarified the action was necessary to maintain claims. The judge additionally found the plan’s inclusion of OO TPRs as well as any NDs releasing parties relevant, too. The court clarified creditors of any type who allege they were not given adequate notice about the choice to withdraw have the chance to pursue a resolution.

Contact an Experienced Bankruptcy Attorney

Bankruptcy can introduce a range of unique challenges and issues. If you or a loved one needs the assistance of a bankruptcy lawyer, you should not hesitate to contact Attorney Melanie Tavare today to schedule a free case evaluation.