On April 19, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion inMOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S. (2023), reversing the Second Circuit decision and determining that the limitations on appeals of bankruptcy sale orders provided in section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code are not jurisdictional. Rather section 363(m) merely provides a "caveated constraint" on the appellant’s remedies on such appeals.
On June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari inMOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (21-1270) to resolve a Circuit split over whether section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code limits appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy sale orders or simply limits the appellant’s remedies on such appeals. Given the now decades-long trend toward resolving Chapter 11 cases through asset sales, including assignments of leases and contracts, the Supreme Court’s decision may provide clarity to a vitally important part of modern Chapter 11 practice.
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the standard for holding a creditor in contempt for attempts to collect a debt from someone who previously received a bankruptcy discharge. In Taggart v. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate of Brown, et al., 587 U.S. ____ (2019), the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and held that the proper standard to apply to bankruptcy discharge violations was an objective standard.
When faced with a recalcitrant debtor, clients sometimes move too quickly to put the debtor into an involuntary bankruptcy, especially when fraudulent transfers and other creditor avoidance attempts become apparent. But creditors considering filing or joining in the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition, and the attorneys that represent them, have much to deliberate before becoming involved in an involuntary bankruptcy filing.
One goal of bankruptcy for individuals is the discharge of debts, meaning that, upon the successful completion of their bankruptcy case, the debtor is no longer personally responsible for the obligations owed prior to the bankruptcy filing. There are certain exceptions to the discharge that apply to particular debts, generally for obligations on debts that are either preferred (such as certain taxes or support obligations) or debts that were incurred under circumstances perceived as bad acts (such as willful and malicious injury or fraud).
On May 10, 2016, the Missouri General Assembly passed the Missouri Commercial Receivership Act (MCRA), providing for significant changes to Missouri’s law on receiverships. Assuming that Governor Nixon signs the bill (which is almost certain), the law will become effective later this year. The significant changes to the Missouri receivership law in the MCRA are as follows:
New value is an important defense to preference liability under the Bankruptcy Code. It allows a preference defendant to relieve their preference liability on a dollar-for-dollar basis for the value provided to the debtor prior to the bankruptcy case.
In a very important decision, the Eighth Circuit recently addressed how the new value defense to preference liability should be applied in three-party payment arrangement.
On December 1, 2015, the Official Forms for use in bankruptcy courts will be updated. The changes were made as part of a forms modernization effort. Almost all of the Official Forms are being updated, including the bankruptcy petition, schedules, and statement of financial affairs, as well as the proof of claim form (formerly Form B 10) used to assert a creditor’s claim in a bankruptcy case.