On February 3, 2022, as part of a series of recent decisions addressing third-party releases, Bankruptcy Judge John T. Dorsey of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) confirmed the chapter 11 plan (the “Plan”) of Mallinckrodt PLC (“Mallinckrodt”) and its debtor affiliates including the third-party releases contained therein.1 In confirming the Plan, Judge Dorsey acknowledged the recent decisions In re Purdue2 in the Second Circuit and In re Ascena in the Fourth Circuit3which raised issues regarding a bankruptcy court’s statutory and constitutional authority to approve non-consensual third-party releases, respectively, but instead applied the law of the Third Circuit and approved third-party releases.
Background
Mallinckrodt and its debtor affiliates (the “Debtors”) operate a global specialty biopharmaceutical company that produces and sells a variety of pharmaceutical products, including opioids. Prior to the filing of its bankruptcy cases, the Debtors faced numerous lawsuits in connection with its production of opioids as well as the marketing and sale of a drug called Acthar H.P. Gel (“Acthar”). In an effort to resolve the litigation, the Debtors reached principal terms of settlements with respective stakeholders,4 and on October 12, 2020, filed chapter 11 bankruptcy cases to finalize and implement those settlements through the Plan.
The Plan’s Releases
Nearly one year into the case, the Debtors proposed a chapter 11 plan which included four types of releases: (1) releases made by the Debtors; (2)releases made by non-debtor third parties whereby certain holders of claims and interests were given an opportunity to opt-out of the third-party releases by way of ballots or an “opt out form” by affirmatively checking an opt-out box (the “Opt-Out Third-Party Releases”); (3) non-consensual releases by opioid claimants (the “Non-Consensual Opioid Release”); and (4) releases by the Debtors and related parties of the opioid claimants.
Objections to the Releases
The Plan, including the releases therein, was overwhelmingly supported by the creditor body, with the exception of one creditor, the United States Trustee (“U.S. Trustee”), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The Non-Consensual Opioid Releases and the Third-Party Releases were the subject of objections lodged by the U.S. Trustee and the State of Rhode Island (“Rhode Island”) (together, the “Opioid Release Objectors”) and (2) the Third-Party Releases by the U.S. Trustee and the SEC (together, the “Third-Party Release Objectors”), respectively.5
The Opioid Release Objectors argued that the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were “vastly overbroad, releasing persons and entities that did not contribute anything of value to the reorganization.” The U.S. Trustee also argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction to approve the releases, and that approving them would be a violation of the opioid claimants’ due process rights.
With respect to the Opt-Out Third-Party Releases, the Third-Party Release Objectors argued that the opt-out procedure did not result in consensual releases because it released claims held by shareholders deemed to reject the plan and by unsecured creditors who were unimpaired or who did not return a ballot with the opt-out box checked. And therefore, such releases were subject to the Third Circuit’s requirements for non-consensual third-party releases set forth in In re Continental,6 which it cannot possibly satisfy.
The Bankruptcy Court’s Decision
Jurisdiction: Judge Dorsey concluded that, pursuant to Third Circuit precedent in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC,7 he had the requisite jurisdictional authority to approve the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases because these releases were integral to the success of the Debtors’ plan. Specifically, he concluded that, without the releases, settlements including those releases which were essential to the plan would not be effectuated, and, without the settlements, the plan would fall apart.
Non-Consensual Opioid Releases: Judge Dorsey found that the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were indeed appropriate because these releases satisfy the Third Circuit’s standard set forth in In re Continental which requires that non-consensual third-party releases be (i) necessary to the reorganization and (ii) fair.
As to necessity, the Bankruptcy Court determined that the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were necessary to the Debtors’ reorganization because the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were an integral part of the settlements embodying them, and therefore a necessary component of the Plan. Moreover, with respect to the non-debtors being released, the Bankruptcy Court found that the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were necessary because the entities and individuals were involved to such a degree with the Debtors’ business that a suit against them would likely to be a drain on the Debtors in some respect.
As to fairness, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were a fair result for opioid claimants as the relevant settlements were negotiated at arm’s length with a large group of sophisticated parties representing diverse interests and substantial consideration was being given in exchange for the releases in the form of a well-funded trust to which opioid claimants can turn for potential compensation. The Bankruptcy Court also concluded that Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were fair as to the non-debtors being released because the Debtors provided additional compensation in exchange for the releases of these non-debtors, and because the record suggests it was unlikely that there were any material claims for liability against these non-debtors that were being waived.
Notably, the Bankruptcy Court considered a number of additional factors in its decision to approve the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases. First, the court noted the “extraordinary nature” of the case due to the fact that the Debtors were the subject of over 3,000 lawsuits related to its opioid products and the fact that the settlement of claims relating thereto, to which the releases were an integral part of, will remove the threat of the lawsuits to the Debtors’ business while ensuring that the opioid claimants receive recoveries far in excess of what they could have obtained in continued litigation. The Bankruptcy Court also noted that, because the case was occurring at the height of a national opioid pandemic and that the nature of the claims arise from the use of opioids medication, time was of the essence. The Bankruptcy Court found it significant that the Non-Consensual Opioid Releases were overwhelmingly supported by the creditor body and the fact that only one creditor, Rhode Island, objected to the releases did not justify application of “a blanket prohibition on non-consensual releases” when the releases at issue otherwise satisfied Third Circuit requirements. Judge Dorsey further observed that practically speaking, the alternative to the Plan and the releases would be “protracted and expensive litigation, which would not help the victims of the opioid crisis but would instead generate significant litigation costs that would drastically reduce the funds available to opioid creditors.”8
Opt-Out Third Party Releases: The Bankruptcy Court overruled objections lodged by the Third-Party Release Objectors and instead concluded that the Opt-Out Third-Party Releases were consensual. In making this determination, Judge Dorsey examined the extent of the notice of the Opt-Out Third Party Releases and found ample evidence in the record that the Debtors made every effort to ensure that the releasing parties were sent notices in a variety of ways that clearly explained in “no uncertain terms” that action was required to preserve claims. Judge Dorsey also found relevant that the fact that the plan contained the Opt-Out Third-Party Releases was well-known and all Non-Debtor Releasing Parties (as defined in the Plan) had “countless” opportunities to opt-out, and only one did. The Bankruptcy Court, however, did make clear that any creditor that claims that they did not receive notice of their right to opt out will have the opportunity to seek relief from the Court to exercise their rights.
Summary of Key Takeaways
As recent decisions suggest, the validity of and authority for third-party releases are receiving increased focus resulting, in part, from the lack of uniformity. The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Second Circuit and the District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia in the Fourth Circuit both invalidated non-consensual third party releases by putting into question the constitutional and/or statutory authority that bankruptcy courts have to approve such releases. In Mallinckrodt, the Bankruptcy Court here approved the third-party releases based on Third Circuit precedent.
The issue of third-party releases is an important issue for all stakeholders given the potential impact on bankruptcy case resolution and creditor recoveries. The common practice and reliance on the use of third party releases to maximize value to the estate and enhance creditor recoveries and current lack of judicial consistency suggests this issue is not presently resolved. Albeit in other contexts,9 in the past Congress has amended the Bankruptcy Code in response to specific chapter 11 proceedings10 to establish parameters on a debtor’s rights with respect to certain public policy interests. And in fact, we have seen this same action begin to unfold as Congress has introduced legislation prohibiting the use of third-party releases absent express written consent by each individual releasing creditor. Time will tell whether these issues are resolved, whether via the federal courts or federal legislation.
1 In re Mallinckrodt PLC., Case No. 20-12522-JTD (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 3, 2022) (Docket No. 6347).
2 In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., 2021 WL 5979108 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021). For more information on the Purdue ruling and third-party releases in general, see David Meyer et al., In re Purdue Pharma L.P.: S.D.N.Y. Holds Bankruptcy Court Lacks Statutory Authority to Approve Sackler Family Releases, VELaw.com (Dec. 28, 2021), https://www.velaw.com/insights/in-re-purdue-pharma-l-p-s-d-n-y-holds-bankruptcy-court-lacks-statutory-authority-to-approve-sackler-family-releases/. In Purdue, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently vacated Purdue’s plan of reorganization on the basis that the bankruptcy court did not have statutory authority to approve the releases contemplated therein. The plan proponents filed notices of appeal of the district court’s vacatur order and sought expedited appeal from the Second Circuit. On January 27, 2022, the Second Circuit agreed to accept the appeal and scheduled oral arguments for April 2022.
3 Patterson v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Grp., Inc., No. 3:21cv167 (DJN), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7431 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022). For more information on the Ascena ruling, third-party releases in general, and the “opt-in” versus “opt-out” debate, see David Meyer et al., District Court in Virginia Continues Questioning of Third-Party Releases – At Least in the Absence of Detailed Findings of Necessity, VELaw.com (Jan. 25, 2022), https://www.velaw.com/insights/district-court-in-virginia-continues-questioning-of-third-party-releases-at-least-in-the-absence-of-detailed-findings-of-necessity/. In Ascena, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia invalidated the debtor’s third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan, holding that the bankruptcy court exceeded the constitutional limits of its authority by granting the third-party releases. The district court also rejected the “opt-out” mechanism used by the Debtors whereby purported releasing parties are deemed to consent to granting third-party releases if they do not affirmatively opt out of the releases. Ultimately, the district court remanded the case back to the bankruptcy court (and to a different bankruptcy judge) to consider confirmation of the plan without the third-party releases and with a modified exculpation provision. Appeals to the Fourth Circuit have not been filed and the debtors have filed a motion seeking an order to modify and reconfirm their plan consistent with the district court’s order.
4 Specifically, Mallinckrodt reached principal terms of a settlement of a comprehensive opioid settlement with Attorneys general of more than forty states and U.S. Territories which was later finalized following negotiations with a court-appointed committee in the national opioid multidistrict litigation and an ad hoc group of guaranteed unsecured notes. Settlement terms were also agreed upon with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Justice in connection with Acthar-related claims and investigations held by the federal government as well as each of the 50 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico that would resolve claims asserted in a rebate related qui tam action. Mallinckrodt also entered into a restructuring agreement with various lender groups ultimately resulting in an agreement on a comprehensive restructuring. The original opioid settlement and the restructuring agreement were memorialized in a Restructuring Support Agreement (the “RSA”) which contemplated a comprehensive restructuring of the Debtors’ enterprise.
5 The Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Trust Fund (the “Pension Trust”) also objected to the Opt-Out Third-Party Releases; however, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Pension Trust did not have standing to object to the Opt-Out Third-Party Releases because it opted out of the releases and therefore is not bound by them.
6 203 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2000).
7 945 F.3d 126 (3d Cir. 2019).
8 In re Mallinckrodt PLC., Docket No. 6347, at 40.
9 See 11 U.S.C. §§1113 and 1114.
10 Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U.S. 513 (1984) that section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code conferred on a debtor the broad power to reject collective bargaining agreements. Similarly, the enactment of section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code was precipitated by a debtor’s attempt to reject retiree benefit contracts. See Chateaugay Corp. v. LTV Steel Co., 943 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir. 1991).
FAQs
In the Purdue Pharma case[2], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed a plan that contained releases of insiders (including the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma) who paid more than $4 billion into a settlement trust for claimants relating to Purdue's marketing and sale of the opioid, ...
What is Bankruptcy Code third party releases? ›
The releases were approved by the bankruptcy court and imposed on parties who never consented to the releases. These third-party releases have been a condition of approval of a debtor's plan of reorganization and have been deemed 'necessary' to implement a plan and permit a debtor to emerge from chapter 11.
How do I opt out of third party release bankruptcy? ›
Under an “opt-out” provision, a creditor or interest holder must affirmatively abstain from voting in favor of a Chapter 11 plan and/or provide documentation to the debtor stating that they do not consent to the third-release by checking a box on the voting ballot.
What is the case number for Mallinckrodt bankruptcy? ›
Mallinckrodt's cases have been assigned to the Honorable John T. Dorsey and are jointly administered under Case No. 20-12522. The Docket can be accessed at the link on the left or through the website maintained by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.
What does it mean to be released of third party? ›
Third-Party Release means the release provided by the Releasing Parties in favor of the Released Parties as set forth in Article 13.2 of the Plan.
Is Purdue Pharma out of bankruptcy? ›
But today, its bankruptcy remains unfinished. Given the complexity and contentiousness of Stamford-based Purdue's bankruptcy — which is attempting to settle several thousand lawsuits filed against the company related to its alleged role in the national opioid crisis — a protracted process was inevitable.
Does bankruptcy always terminate a contract when does it not? ›
Bankruptcy Code Restrictions
This means that the court controls all property and contracts of the debtor and only the court can decide whether a contract can be assumed, rejected, or otherwise terminated despite what is stated in the contract.
Can a bankruptcy discharge be overturned? ›
Typically, a request to revoke the debtor's discharge must be filed within one year of the discharge or, in some cases, before the date that the case is closed. The court will decide whether such allegations are true and, if so, whether to revoke the discharge.
What is opposition to discharge bankruptcy? ›
If your bankruptcy trustee opposes your discharge, you will need to attend a court hearing and explain to the bankruptcy judge why you did not meet one or more of your obligations. They will then assess your case and decide how to proceed.
Is Mallinckrodt cleared to leave bankruptcy? ›
Mallinckrodt PLC has won court approval to settle its opioid-related liabilities for roughly $1.7 billion and exit chapter 11 under a broader reorganization deal that will hand control to creditors and cut about $1.3 billion in debt.
(1) What is Mallinckrodt? Mallinckrodt Plc is an opioid manufacturer that filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in 2020, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Mallinckrodt's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization took effect on June 16, 2022.
How much did the Mallinckrodt lawsuit payout? ›
The settlement provides for Mallinckrodt's payment of approximately $234.7 million to resolve the Medicaid rebate allegations and approximately $26.3 million to resolve the kickback allegations.
What is an example of a third party defendant? ›
For example, assume Phyllis is involved in a car accident with Dan. Phyllis sues Dan, claiming that he negligently ran a red light and crashed into her. Dan, however, claims that Tom was driving the car. Dan, as a third-party plaintiff, can add Tom as a third-party defendant.
What is an example of a third party? ›
An example of a third party would be the escrow company in a real estate transaction; the escrow party acts as a neutral agent by collecting the documents and money that the buyer and seller exchange when completing the transaction. A collection agency may be another example of a third party.
What are considered 3rd parties? ›
This section includes any party that is independent, populist, or any other that either rejects left–right politics or doesn't have a party platform.
How much money will I get from Purdue Pharma settlement? ›
The bankruptcy plan sets aside up to $750 million for individual victims. Each victim can receive up to $48,000, depending on various factors, if the settlement is approved. The money is far less than victims had hoped to receive. But many say it's better than nothing.
What is the latest update on the Purdue Pharma lawsuit? ›
Purdue Pharma settlement: Purdue Pharma remains in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but settlements continue to process. One finalized on March 3, 2022, paid $6 billion to help communities handle widespread opioid addiction.
What is the latest OxyContin settlement? ›
Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family reach $6 billion OxyContin settlement : NPR. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family reach $6 billion OxyContin settlement The deal, hashed out over weeks of intense negotiations, raises the amount paid by the Sacklers by more than $1 billion.
Which debt can never be erased by bankruptcy? ›
Key Takeaways. Types of debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy include alimony, child support, and certain unpaid taxes. Other types of debt that cannot be alleviated in bankruptcy include debts for willful and malicious injury to another person or property.
What contracts can be rejected in bankruptcy? ›
Under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtor has the option to either assume or reject unexpired leases and executory contracts. (In simple terms, an executory contract is one under which at least one of the parties has obligations to perform.)
No matter which form of bankruptcy is sought, not all debt can be wiped out through a bankruptcy case. Taxes, spousal support, child support, alimony, and government-funded or backed student loans are some types of debt you will not be able to discharge in bankruptcy.
Can creditors come after you after bankruptcy discharge? ›
Once the debt is discharged by the bankruptcy court, the discharge permanently bars the creditor or debt collector from collection of the debt. Filing for bankruptcy can have long-term consequences so consult a bankruptcy attorney to learn more.
Is discharged or dismissed bankruptcy better? ›
A discharge is a win! The bankruptcy discharge order wipes out your personal legal liability to pay a debt. A dismissal is usually a loss. It means the bankruptcy case was closed before a discharge was entered.
When can a bankruptcy be automatically discharge? ›
A discharge from bankruptcy is a statutory process which fees a bankrupt from the restrictions of bankruptcy and most of their bankruptcy debts. A bankrupt is usually automatically discharged from bankruptcy 12 months after the date of the bankruptcy order, even if no payments have yet been made to creditors.
What is a 727 objection to discharge? ›
Under this provision, the debtor may be denied discharge if he refuses to obey any lawful order of the court, or if he refuses to testify after having been granted immunity or after improperly invoking the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
What are grounds for objecting to bankruptcy discharge? ›
The debt was incurred through fraud, false pretenses, or misrepresentation, such as a person taking on debt with no intent of paying it back. The debt is a credit card debt that was used to pay a nondischargeable debt. The bankruptcy petition was fraudulent or filed to abuse creditors.
Can creditors challenge a bankruptcy? ›
An objection to a debt discharge is a creditor's right to challenge your release from liability for a debt owed to them. Objections can be raised at 341 hearings, where creditors can question the bankruptcy filer, under oath, about their assets, liabilities, and other matters pertaining to the bankruptcy case.
What is the Mallinckrodt decision? ›
Mallinckrodt PLC,1 the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a debtor that purchased intellectual property under a prepetition asset purchase agreement could continue to retain and use the property post-confirmation while discharging its obligations to pay any future royalties otherwise ...
Can I file a claim against Mallinckrodt? ›
Anyone can make a claim against the trust to be considered for an award. There are different tiers of compensation available, depending on the length of use and extent of injury.
What bankruptcy wipes out all debt? ›
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, also known as “liquidation bankruptcy” or “straight bankruptcy,” is a legal process that allows qualifying debtors to get most of their debts discharged (wiped out). If you qualify for Chapter 7, you can get your unsecured debts wiped out, usually within 6 months of filing.
June 16, 2022. NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced that her office secured up to $58.5 million from one of the largest drug manufacturers of opioids in the country, Mallinckrodt plc (Mallinckrodt), for its role in fueling the opioid crisis.
How much is the opioid settlement? ›
According to her data, which is used by state governments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the total pot of funds available from the settlements has reached around $54 billion dollars, with nearly half of the money coming from a $26 billion dollar 2022 settlement with drug manufacturers and ...
How much did Mallinckrodt payout in bankruptcy? ›
In 2020, Mallinckrodt filed for bankruptcy protection, and through the bankruptcy, it paid less than $2 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits. This payment represents a very small fraction of the alleged value of those claims.
What is the most money received from a class action lawsuit? ›
Lead plaintiffs receive the most money in class action lawsuits. They typically have the worst injuries and the highest damages.
What is the most money won in lawsuit? ›
1998 – The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - $206 Billion. The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was entered in November 1998 and is still the largest lawsuit settlement in history.
What is the issue with Mallinckrodt? ›
In its complaint, the government alleges that Mallinckrodt used a foundation as a conduit to pay illegal kickbacks in the form of copay subsidies for Acthar so it could market the drug as “free” to doctors and patients while increasing its price.
How do I remove my bankruptcy status? ›
The court will annul a bankruptcy order once the court is satisfied that the bankrupt's debt are paid in full. (b) Discharge by Court Order under section 33(3) of Insolvency Act 1967; This application is filed by the bankrupt anytime to the court at any time after a bankruptcy order has been made.
How do I come off bankruptcy? ›
You don't have to do anything to have a bankruptcy removed from your credit report. The bankruptcy and any included accounts will be deleted automatically. The discharge date is the date the bankruptcy plan is completed after being filed.
How do I stop creditor calls after bankruptcy? ›
To stop collection calls, ask for the debt collector's mailing address and tell them – in writing – to stop contacting you. Make sure to keep a copy for your records. Send your letter by certified mail, and pay for a “return receipt” to document when the collector received it.
How do I close a Chapter 11 case? ›
A chapter 11 case can be closed ON AN INTERIM BASIS if the debtor needs time to continue payments made under the plan. A chapter 11 case can be closed WITH A FINAL DECREE if the plan is substantially consummated and if administrative actions are completed and if all other activities in the case are completed.
Even when the bankruptcy is discharged—meaning you won't be liable for that debt anymore—it won't be removed from credit reports. The status of the bankruptcy will be updated, but it will still take seven to 10 years from the filing date for the bankruptcy to be removed from credit reports.
How long does it take for bankruptcy to be removed? ›
A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is typically removed from your credit report 10 years after the date you filed, and this is done automatically, so you don't have to initiate that removal.
Can a bankruptcy be removed after 7 years? ›
The law states that credit reporting agencies may not report a bankruptcy case on a person's credit report after ten (10) years from the date the bankruptcy case is filed. Generally, bad credit information is removed after seven (7) years.
Do I still owe money after bankruptcy? ›
After a bankruptcy, the debtor is no longer legally required to pay any debts that are eliminated, or discharged, in bankruptcy court. Collectors cannot collect on the debts that have been discharged.
What debts stay after bankruptcy? ›
Types of debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy include alimony, child support, and certain unpaid taxes. Other types of debt that cannot be alleviated in bankruptcy include debts for willful and malicious injury to another person or property.
How much does credit score go up after Chapter 7 falls off? ›
WalletHub, Financial Company
How much your credit score increases after a bankruptcy is removed from your credit report depends on a number of factors, but many people report increases ranging from 30 to 100 points.
What is the 11 word phrase to stop debt collectors? ›
If you are struggling with debt and debt collectors, Farmer & Morris Law, PLLC can help. As soon as you use the 11-word phrase “please cease and desist all calls and contact with me immediately” to stop the harassment, call us for a free consultation about what you can do to resolve your debt problems for good.
Can a creditor still collect on a charged off debt? ›
A charge-off doesn't mean collection efforts will stop. Instead, the new owner of the debt—the debt collector—will continue to take steps to collect on the account.
What can be discharged in Chapter 11? ›
The discharge received by an individual debtor in a Chapter 11 case discharges the debtor from all pre-confirmation debts except those that would not be dischargeable in a Chapter 7 case filed by the same debtor.
What does notice of Chapter 7 case closed without discharge mean? ›
Cases are closed without discharge when the debtor does not complete the required debtor education required as a condition of discharge. The court may also close your case without discharge if you failed the last step for getting rid of debt. Your filing may not have been filed timely.
The concise answer is—it depends. Each Chapter 11 case, Creditor situation, and individual bankruptcy claim is unique and subject to many variables that can impact the recovery timeline. Certain Creditors will receive fast payouts and full recovery on their claim's value, while other Creditors will not be as fortunate.
