Abstract
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the Supreme Court invalidated non-consensual third-party releases in Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans. In doing so, however, the Court left open the question of what constitutes valid consent to a release. This Comment argues that lower courts must now require a higher threshold of affirmative consent—particularly in mass-tort bankruptcies involving highly culpable non-debtors. In light of Purdue’s implication that third-party releases are anchored in contract law principles, this Comment suggests that courts should evaluate what constitutes adequate consideration for a release.
Included in
Banking and Finance Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons
