Legal Fireworks Over Releases and Opt-Outs
The most intense courtroom debate centered on third-party releases — legal provisions that shield certain parties from future lawsuits. The U.S. Trustee, citing the Supreme Court’s Harrington v. Purdue Pharma decision, argued that Conn’s use of an opt-out mechanism to imply consent was unconstitutional.
“It’s not the releases we object to — it’s the imposition by default,” said Jayson Ruff, representing the Trustee. “I can’t imagine anything more unfair than binding someone simply because they didn’t speak up.”
But Conn’s counsel, Maegan Quejada of Sidley Austin LLP, countered that the plan was narrowly crafted, the opt-out provisions were clearly explained, and the due process standard had been satisfied.
Judge Perez ultimately sided with Conn’s, ruling that the limited scope of releases and constitutional notice were sufficient.
“You didn’t have to get to the more difficult questions of consent,” the judge added, dismissing the idea that the plan constituted a binding contract formed by silence.
