Mass Torts

This panel will discuss the current status of nonconsensual third-party releases (Purdue, Aearo, Boy Scouts, LTL), good faith and financial distress, alternatives to nonconsensual releases, international comparisons, preservation and impact of insurance, and case administration issues that include obtaining consent, conflicts among claimants represented by a single firm, and preservation of a claimant’s “day in court.”

The Supreme Court on Aug. 10 granted an emergency application for a stay and granted certiorari in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. The Court will consider whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties without the claimants’ consent. The case is scheduled to be argued in the December 2023 argument session. Hear experts on both sides of the issue as they prognosticate on how the use of third-party releases may unfold before the Supreme Court.

This panel will discuss features of mass tort cases — including stays of actions and discovery against nondebtors, releases for nondebtors, the role of future claims representatives, and insurance neutrality — and the effects of recent case law.

Regional judges will strive to answer questions on current issues.

Two pairs of judges square off to consider (1) whether bankruptcies can be properly filed when a debtor faces a deluge of potential tort claims and (2) whether bankruptcy courts can support plans regarding certain special fee and financing arrangements for debtors. RESOLVED: That a bankruptcy is filed in good faith where the debtor is not otherwise in immediate financial distress and appears to have the liquidity to pay its creditors in full, but where the case is filed because of the debtor is a defendant facing a deluge of tort claims that could at some point threaten the debtor’s business and where the debtor believes that the mechanism for liquidating those claims through a trust created under a plan of reorganization will be fairer and better for all parties than the results that would otherwise obtain in the tort system. RESOLVED: That a bankruptcy court may approve a DIP financing agreement that incorporates the milestones set out in a restructuring support agreement, that provides that (a) the debtors will propose a plan that provides specified treatment to the Supporting Parties, which treatment is materially the same as the plan provides to similarly situated creditors; (b) obligates the Supporting Parties to vote in favor of the debtor’s plan and to vote against any competing plan; and (c) provides that the Supporting Parties (and only the supporting parties) will provide exit financing to the Reorganized Debtors, at rates and fees that exceed prevailing market terms.

The petition is filed. At the § 341 meeting, the trustee asks the debtor whether there have been any personal-injury actions, whether the debtor has the right to sue someone, and whether the debtor inherited any assets 180 days prior to the petition date or within 180 days after the petition date. However, debtor clients often intentionally or inadvertently fail to disclose an asset. This panel will explore best practices for dealing with these and other post-filing litigation pitfalls, and for handling cases where there are undisclosed or undiscovered assets.

This panel will discuss recurring issues related to mass tort cases, including the automatic stay, third-party releases (Sun Edision, Midway Gold, Purdue), venue-selection and estimation. The panelists will also offer an analysis of such key recurring issues as the use and propriety of bankruptcy for solvent debtors, and bankruptcy abuse vs. bankruptcy planning.