And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision"
The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement.
SC: Yeah, no, the text doesn't say that.
As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law. The turn is on whether the Sacklers are having third-party liabilities discharged versus released.
The solution may be in re-drafting the Plan so it’s more clearly a release. That might mean the Sacklers can be sued for fraud, but not other things.
What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about? You seem to have clarity the Court’s members couldn’t find.
Gets called out for over-simplifying the case.
You, now: What is the difference between a discharge and release as it relates to the §1123(b)(6) “any other appropriate provision” power this case is about?
Indeed. Maybe next time, stop pretending there isn't more to it.
Interestingly, the argument for is textual. The argument against is pragmatic. (Both argue history, in my opinion, unconvincingly. They’re talking past each other on release vs discharge, a delineation neither side bothers to delve into.) The dividing line defies easy summary. (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson concurring, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.)