In two cases in as many months, the Supreme Court tackled the application of sovereign immunity in two separate insolvency statutes. Two separate government-like entities suffered conflicting fates while the Court (arguably) employed the same analysis. How so?
Clear Statement Rule
In the latest decision of the Hong Kong court to consider the interplay between arbitration clauses and winding-up or bankruptcy petitions, on 22 May 2023, the Hon. Linda Chan J (the Judge) made a winding-up order against Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co. Limited (the Company) and rejected the Company’s argument that the dispute over the underlying debt should be referred to arbitration.
Congress passed the operative texts without noticeable fanfare. From its enactment to today, section 363(k) has entitled a secured creditor to “credit bid” the full amount of the debt owed by a debtor in any sale of the underlying collateral pursuant to section 363(b). That this statutory bequest elicited little debate made imminent sense, for Congress had thereby codified one of secured creditors’ seemingly time-honored rights.
On April 24, 2023, the First Circuit’s opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin came up for oral argument before the Supreme Court. At issue in this appeal is whether this provision’s “abrogat[ion]” of sovereign immunity “as to a governmental unit,” defined to include any “other … domestic government” in section 101(27), embodies a congressional intention to revoke the sovereign immunity of a Native American tribe with sufficient and obvious clarity to be construed as such a revocation.
On April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC, ruled Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) to be non-jurisdictional, i.e. just a “mere restriction on the effects of a valid exercise” of judicial power “when a party successfully appeals a covered authorization.” Before MOAC, the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits held section 363(m) to be non-jurisdictional, but the Fifth and Second Circuits had diverged.
Reasoning
In In re Schubert, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding because the appellants had failed the “person-aggrieved” test for bankruptcy appellate standing. Had they challenged this standard’s existence, two of the three judges likely would have “abrogate[d]” it; the third would have salvaged it. This decision’s dicta represents perhaps the first outright rejection of bankruptcy’s appellate standing touchstone based on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S.
The statutory language is clear. As of a bankruptcy petition’s filing date, the automatic stay of section 362 constricts many a creditor and bars many an action. The broad scope of section 362(a)(1) proscribes “the commencement or continuation ...
When can a municipality declare bankruptcy under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code? An issue explored the headline-grabbing chapter 9 case of Detroit, that’s the question illuminated by a decision dealing with the travails of Chester, Pennsylvania, issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Bankruptcy Court”) on March 14, 2023.
Chester’s Long Road to Insolvency
Background
Whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 if the foreign debtor does not satisfy the commands of both section 109 (of chapter 1) and section 1517 (of chapter 15) of the Bankruptcy Code has long been a contentious issue. As previewed at an oral argument held on March 10, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit has now waded into this thicket, setting up the possibility of a circuit-level counterweight to the Second Circuit’s seminal decision in In re Barnet.
Statutory Text