74 Am. U. L. Rev. 1775 (2025).

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.

*Note & Comment Editor, American University Law Review, Volume 75; J.D. Candidate, May 2026, American University Washington College of Law; B.A., Environmental Studies, 2017, Brown University. First and foremost, thank you to my Editor, Erin McCoy, and my Faculty Advisor, Richard Pollak, whose detailed feedback and support were invaluable throughout this process. Thank you to the American University Law Review staffers for all of their hard work on this piece. Finally, thank you to my friends and family—I am beyond grateful for your unwavering support and willingness to put up with more conversations about bankruptcy law than you ever
asked for.