Mass Tort Litigation in Baltimore: Time for Victims to Receive Relief

Courtney Patterson

            Within the past decade, there have been several high-profile cases where companies have shielded themselves from mass tort litigation on common avenues such as class actions or multi-district litigation by declaring bankruptcy.[1] The Johns-Manville Corporation case in the 1980s was one of the pioneer mass tort litigation bankruptcies that not only originated what would soon be referred to as the Texas Two-Step, but created a rabbit hole as to how mass torts should be handled within the bankruptcy system.[2] This case concerned personal injury liabilities of claimants involving asbestos exposure, which is why section 524(g) was created, “to strengthen the trust/injunction mechanisms and offer similar certitude to other asbestos/trust injunction mechanisms that meet the same kind of high standards with respect to the rights of the claimants.”[3] The question remains, can you give the same treatment to all tort victims? Does it matter what the mass tort is? In today’s climate, the realms of these cases include but are not limited to claims within the opioid crisis, products liability, and sexual misconduct.[4]

Currently, we see this issue right in the heart of downtown Baltimore where the Honorable Michelle M. Harner, a former dean of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, faces a critical decision regarding the Baltimore Catholic Archdiocese bankruptcy case.[5] The case dates back to 2023 in which the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 “in anticipation of being named as a defendant in hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits relating to claims of child sexual abuse.”[6] When a bankruptcy is filed, an automatic stay is enacted in which all outstanding claims of a company or organization prior to filing a bankruptcy petition are suspended and not to be pursed during the bankruptcy proceeding, which lead to the sexual assault survivors at the hand of the Archdiocese of Baltimore losing their opportunity to pursue claims against the debtor.[7] In the past several months, Judge Harner has contemplated this case with no settlement in sight after the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“the Committee”) filed a Motion to Dismiss.[8] On January 15, 2026, Judge Harner released a highly anticipated ruling stating that the court found “it must appropriate to deny the Motion without prejudice at this time. The parties are focusing on the mediation process in this case and do not need unnecessary distractions.”[9] As this case stays alive for another day in the bankruptcy court, it begs the question of whether it has a place in the realm of bankruptcy.

            There has been an ongoing debate on whether mass tort litigation belongs in the bankruptcy sphere. On one hand, the landscape of bankruptcy courts can serve as a more efficient litigation mechanism.[10] Due to the management systems in place within the bankruptcy courts, victims may receive maximum relief in comparison to multi-district litigation (“MDL”) or class actions.[11] On the flipside, the bankruptcy courts themselves are not equipped with the same powers or tools that the MDL system possesses.[12] A reform effort that could be made to protect the interests of tort claimants even more so than a Tort Claimants’ Committee (TCC) would be to implement the role of special masters, not as a replacement for judges, but rather an extra guard dog such as the Trustee or a Consumer Privacy Ombudsman does for respective cases.[13] This would be essential when it comes to sexual abuse bankruptcies, which sadly have only been increasing, especially regarding child sexual abuse.[14] Often times, individuals are lost in the shuffle during mass tort bankruptcies, which leads to survivors’ individual stories disappearing to the background, traumatization of victims, and feeling a loss of power and autonomy.[15]

Despite the success of settlements in other facets of mass tort bankruptcies, there is much more involved within cases handling Catholic dioceses.[16] With the sudden surge in bankruptcies period in the United States, with no exception to those incorporating mass tort litigation, it is essential to introduce reform that will protect victims in not just traditional asbestos mass tort cases but expand the protections to victims of all shapes and sizes in a variety of industries.[17]

[1] Korinne Dunn et al., Should Mass Tort Victims Settle for Bankruptcy?, The Regulatory Review (Mar. 9, 2024), https://www.theregreview.org/2024/03/09/should-mass-tort-victims-settle-for-bankruptcy/.

[2] In re Johns-Manville Corp., 60 B.R. 842, 843 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd, 801 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1986).

[3] See 140 CONG. REC. 27,692 (1994) (statement of Rep. Jack B. Brooks).

[4] Dunn, surpa note 1.

[5] Scott Maucione, Judge to Rule on Dismissing Baltimore Archdiocese Bankruptcy Case Early Next Year, WYPR News (Oct. 31, 2025).

[6] In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Baltimore, 672 B.R. 672, 673 (Bankr. D. Md. 2025).

[7] Id.

[8] In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore, No. 23-16969-MMH, Interim Order Addressing Mot. To Dismiss Case (Bankr. D. Md. Oct. 30, 2025).

[9] Id.

[10] Bankruptcy in Mass Tort Litigation FAQs, Morris James LLP (Jan. 27, 2024), https://www.morrisjames.com/p/102j9y4/bankruptcy-in-mass-tort-litigation-faqs/.

[11] Ralph E. Brubaker, Tripp Haston & Marc E. Williams, Texas Fold ‘Em: Dissecting the Success and Failure of the Texas Two-Step in Mass Torts and How It’s Utilized Today, IADC 2025 Annual Meeting (Jul. 5-10, 2025), https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/1/6/03_-_Texas_Fold_Em_Dissecting_the_Success_and_Failure_of_the_Texas_Two-Step.pdf.

[12] Kenneth Rosen, Bankruptcy Court Needs Special Masters to Manage Mass Tort Surge, Bloomburg l. (Feb. 2, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary/bankruptcy-court-needs-special-masters-to-manage-mass-tort-surge.

[13] Id.  

[14] See In re Boy Scouts of Am., 137 F.4th 126, 149 (3d Cir. 2025) (holding that the appeal of abuse claimants must be dismissed as “statutorily moot” under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code as the claimants did not obtain a stay pending appeal before the sale was authorized as part of a confirmation plan hearing, but may pursue their claims under the Trust Distribution Procedures and recover monetarily for their suffering).

[15] Marci A. Hamilton & Bridget Brainard, Rethinking Chapter 11 For Mass Child Sexual Abuse Claims: Shifting The Focus From Debtor Institutions To The Victims, 30 J. Bankr. L. & Prac. NL Art. 1, 6 (2021).

[16] Id. at 11.

[17] Kate Gaither, An Update on Proposed Bankruptcy Reform and Relief Legislation, Johnston clem Gifford (Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.johnstonclem.com/news-insights/bankruptcy-reform-legislation/.