PRACTICE NOTES
This Practice Note explores the implications of the US Supreme Court’s decision in Harrington v Purdue Pharma LP, 144 S.Ct. 2071 (2024), which struck down the availability of non‑consensual third‑party releases, for the recognition and enforcement of those releases in Chapter 15 proceedings. Although the Purdue ruling still bars such releases in US Chapter 11 matters, numerous foreign insolvency regimes authorise non‑consensual third‑party releases. Before Purdue, US bankruptcy courts in Chapter 15 routinely and consistently recognised and enforced foreign proceedings and plans containing non‑consensual releases (see Practice Note: US Chapter 15 overview). After Purdue, Chapter 15 courts have, in practice, largely continued this approach, where justified under sections 1521 and 1507 of the Bankruptcy Code, applying comity and Chapter 15’s objectives, though some courts have more closely reviewed efforts to broaden relief beyond what the foreign court approved. This Practice Note
Restructuring & Insolvency