The Structurlam liquidating trust lost a meaningful damages theory in its adversary proceeding against Walmart. In a memorandum opinion republished by vLex, the court agreed with Walmart that the parties’ contractual consequential-damages disclaimer is enforceable and dismissed the breach-of-contract claims to the extent they seek bankruptcy-case costs or other consequential damages.

That matters because the Walmart dispute is central to the post-confirmation recovery story: the trust alleges Walmart’s conduct around the mass-timber supply relationship helped drive Structurlam into Chapter 11. The ruling does not end the Walmart litigation, but it narrows the damages stack available to trust beneficiaries and leaves the trust to pursue claims without a major category of case-cost and consequential-damages recovery.