Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Delaware District Court Could Guide Supreme Court Purdue Pharma Decision
A bankruptcy court properly held that derivative claims based on "piercing the corporate veil theory of liability [were] released under" a confirmed reorganization plan, but that direct "claims for negligent undertaking" were not released and "could be asserted" in state court against the debtors' equity sponsors (Sponsors). In re Port Neches Fuels, LLC, 2024 WL 1298590, *1 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2024). The confirmed plan, affirmed by the district court, had released "any and all claims … (including any derivative claims, asserted or assertable on behalf of the Debtors [and] the Reorganized Debtors … against certain released parties," including the Sponsors. When plaintiffs sued the Sponsors in Texas state court, the defendants asked the bankruptcy court to "enforce the plan, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were based on piercing the corporate veil theory of liability, that any such claims belonged to the Debtors' estates, and accordingly those claims were released under the plan." Id.
Relevance
The U.S. Supreme Court will "soon, likely before its summer break … render an opinion in … [Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., (Case No. 23-124) ((argued Dec. 4, 2023)]." Brian Shaw and David Doyle, "How Purdue Pharma High Court Case May Change Bankruptcy," LAW 360, April 3, 2024. According to Messrs. Shaw and Doyle, the Court's decision "may be the death of most third-party releases in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases," like the one in Port Neches. Id. As shown below, this fear may be overwrought.
The Port Neches decision, supported by a superb bankruptcy court opinion, In re TPC Group Inc., 2023 WL 2 1 6 8045 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 22 2023) (Goldblatt, B.J.), provides a sensible, balanced response and a way to resolve the Purdue issue. The issues here are not about the insiders' conduct and not about third party releases generally. The issue here is about who owns direct, particularized claims. In fact, the district court in the Purdue case, 635 B.R. 26 (S.D.N.Y. 1021), provided an analysis similar to that in Port Neches. The Purdue decision, ostensibly based on statutory construction, could have enabled the reorganization plan to be confirmed without releases of direct claims but with the insiders' increasing their contribution from $4.3 billion to roughly $6 billion, as they actually did after the district court decision was rendered. See, In re Purdue Pharma L.P., 69 F.4th 45, 62 (2d Cir. 2023). Most significant, in the Purdue case no party ultimately challenged the third party releases for the debtor's derivative claims. As the Purdue district court stressed, the bankruptcy court had "undoubted jurisdiction" over derivative claims, 635 B.R. at 37, but lacked "the statutory authority to impose" the release of "particularized or direct claims." Id. at 36. In Port Neches, the analysis was even simpler: the debtors' estate did not own any direct third party claims to the extent they existed. The non-debtor plaintiffs owned those claims.
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
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.
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.
Role and Responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
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?