After Purdue Pharma: The Future of Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases in Chapter 15 Proceedings Gillian Ho

Abstract

With bankruptcy proceedings becoming an increasingly popular mechanism through which overburdened debtors and mass tortfeasors consolidate and manage liabilities, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma deals a blow to individuals who may have once relied on nonconsensual, third-party releases to relieve themselves of their personal liabilities. While the Purdue Pharma decision rolls back thirty decades of the use of nonconsensual, third-party releases, the Supreme Court expressly limited its scope to domestic, Chapter 11 proceedings. In an era of global, multi- jurisdictional entities and rampant forum-shopping, this thrusts the practice of pursuing nonconsensual, third-party releases in cross-border insolvency proceedings into flux. This Note therefore aims to examine the impact that the Purdue Pharma decision could have on the future of nonconsensual third-party releases in cross-border, Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings as well as how the decision may shape debtors’ use of this mechanism under the American bankruptcy regime.