Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Bankruptcy StrategistFeaturesBankruptcyLitigationUnited States Supreme Court

The Future Viability of 105(a) Injunctions Following the Supreme Court's Decision In 'Purdue Pharma'

By Theresa A. Driscoll
August 01, 2024

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Purdue Pharma has put an end to the use of permanent plan injunctions in the form of nonconsensual third-party releases as a reorganizational tool in Chapter 11, at least for now. What was not addressed by the Supreme Court in Purdue Pharma is the propriety of temporary injunctions that halt third-party litigation pending formulation of a Chapter 11 plan (typically a plan that would contain nonconsensual third-party releases). At the outset of a Chapter 11 case, debtors often seek entry of a preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code extending the automatic stay to and temporarily enjoining litigation against nondebtors. Commonly referred to by bankruptcy practitioners and courts as a "105(a) injunction", this relief is particularly prevalent in cases, like Purdue Pharma, involving multi-party, mass tort litigation where the debtor and certain nondebtors may be co-defendants in prepetition litigation with shared insurance, defenses, evidence and liability.

The rationale for a 105(a) injunction is to stay litigation that could impede the debtor's reorganization such as by depleting insurance assets, increasing estate liability through indemnification and contribution claims, or distracting debtor principals from attending to their responsibilities in Chapter 11 and formulating a plan. Underpinning most every request for a 105(a) injunction, and particularly in the mass tort bankruptcy context, is the debtor's primary objective of stopping litigation in multiple forums in favor of addressing claimants' claims in a single forum (the bankruptcy court) pending an eventual permanent injunction under a plan which includes third-party releases in favor of the nondebtor defendants and/or co-obligors. The breathing spell afforded by a 105(a) injunction enables creditors to analyze whether they would support an eventual plan containing third-party releases.

Until now, a successful reorganization assumed the debtor could confirm a plan with nondebtor releases and injunctions based on less than full creditor consensus. Now that nonconsensual releases in Chapter 11 plans are no longer permitted, will debtors have a more difficult time obtaining a 105(a) injunction, even if only pending confirmation of a plan of reorganization?

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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 Image

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 Image

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 Image

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 Image

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?