Background
You are a legislative aide to U.S. Senator Morris from the State of Gallatin. The senator has
been asked to co-sponsor legislation that would amend the Bankruptcy Code to reverse the
effect of the decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., thus authorizing bankruptcy courts
to order non-consensual third-party releases as part of Chapter 11 plans of reorganization in all
mass-tort bankruptcy cases. Senator Morris wants to understand the legal and policy issues
discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in the case before she makes her
decision about co-sponsoring. Shes asked you for an analysis of the opinions.
Specifically, she wants you to address the following questions in a memorandum:
1. The majority and dissent disagree about the proper interpretation of the language of
Section 1123(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. Explain how they interpret the language,
including but not limited to their views on the purpose of the section and the
Bankruptcy Code. In addition, provide your judgment about which opinion has the
better argument as to how the section should be interpreted.
2. The majority and dissent also disagree on whether it is good policy to allow bankruptcy
courts to order non-consensual third-party releases. Explain how they disagree.
3. What is your judgment about whether it is good policy to amend the Bankruptcy Code
to authorize bankruptcy courts to order non-consensual third-party releases in all mass
tort bankruptcies?