ARTICLE
7 October 2025

Recognition Of Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases In Ch. 15 After Purdue

W
WilmerHale

Contributor

WilmerHale provides legal representation across a comprehensive range of practice areas critical to the success of its clients. With a staunch commitment to public service, the firm is a leader in pro bono representation. WilmerHale is 1,000 lawyers strong with 12 offices in the United States, Europe and Asia.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP has, in many respects, changed the landscape for nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 cases.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Partners Benjamin Loveland and George Shuster authored a chapter in the October issue of The American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, where they discuss the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP on nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 15 cases. They examine two recent decision within this lens and the developments that could still arise from this evolving area of case law.

Excerpt: "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP has, in many respects, changed the landscape for nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 cases. What effect, if any, has Purdue had on the viability of such releases in chapter 15 cases? As two recent decisions suggest, perhaps not much, and those decisions provide far more flexibility for non consensual third-party releases in chapter 15 than the Supreme Court allows in chapter 11."

View the full article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More