Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Sets Up Seven-Factor Test for Third-Party Releases In Bankruptcy Cases
The Second Circuit had a tough call to make in the Purdue Pharmacy bankruptcy appeal: What to do about the release given to the Sackler families who had agreed to contribute $5.5 to $6 billion to Purdue's reorganization plan but were not themselves in bankruptcy. By the time that the Second Circuit heard the appeal from the district court's rejection of the release, all of the objections had been withdrawn, except those of the U.S. trustee, a Justice Department official who does not represent any creditors, and some Canadian municipalities. The release issue was all that was holding up the distribution of billions of dollars to the claimants that include municipalities, hospitals and individuals and families who suffered serious harms from Purdue's over promotion of OxyContin, which many claimants believe was due to the unlawful acts of the Sackers, who took out $11 billion from the company and are now living outside the United States.
The legality of third-party releases is an important issue that has divided the courts of appeals, with the Second Circuit having approved some in contexts different from this case. There is much to debate about whether the very detailed Bankruptcy Code allows releases of the kind that the Sacklers insist that they be given as a condition of making their contribution, but I will pass on that question now and instead focus on the Second Circuit's obvious concern that releases not be given as a matter of course. To set up that guardrail, the court announced a seven-factor test that must be applied to determine whether a release is authorized.
Before I examine that test to assess how much, if at all, it limits nondebtor releases, two points should be noted. First, none of the seven factors has any statutory basis in the Bankruptcy Code; they are all equitable considerations taken from other cases. By contrast, 11 U.S.C. §524(g), which specifically provides for the kind of relief that the Sacklers sought, has seven subsections, most of which contain multiple subparts. Second, there is no ranking among the factors or any rule on what to do when they do not all point in one direction. After that review, I will return to the basic question of whether such releases are permitted at all, taking into account the court's conclusion that some limits are essential, although not found anywhere in the code.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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 a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?