In the latest issue of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision holding that Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not jurisdictional. We also discuss two Bankruptcy Court decisions from the Southern District of New York, one which held that the “knowledge exception” to Section 546(e)’s safe harbor defense was sufficiently pled to survive dismissal, and the other which found that service of a discovery subpoena on the foreign debtor’s founders via Twitter was adequate.

In In re CII Parent, Inc.,¹ the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware affirmed a secured lender’s prepetition exercise of its proxy rights and its subsequent removal and replacement of the directors/managers of the debtor’s non-bankrupt subsidiaries, effectively cutting off the debtor’s ability to pursue effective relief in the bankruptcy case.

Oral arguments occur on April 24, 2023, before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, Case No 22-227. Here is a link to the oral arguments transcript.

What follows is an attempt to, (i) summarize the facts and issue in the case, and (ii) provide a sampling of questions and comments from the justices during oral arguments.

Facts

Here’s what happened:

On May 5, 2023, the SEC filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against a mutual fund’s adviser for aiding and abetting violations of Rule 22e-4 (the “Liquidity Rule”) by the mutual fund it advised (the “Fund”) and whose Liquidity Risk Management Program (“LRMP”) it administered.

In August 1992, the largest indoor shopping mall in the continental United States opened to great fanfare in suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota. Dubbed the Mall of America (MOA), this sprawling retail center enjoyed 330 stores, anchored by retail tenants at the height of their reputations: Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom, and Sears Roebuck and Co. (Sears).

In years past defaulting lender mechanics in a subscription credit facility may have been viewed as boiler plate language and, in most cases, the relevant provisions have not received much attention. In light of recent events in the banking industry, defaulting lender provisions have gained some renewed attention. In this article we take a look at the current general state of defaulting lender provisions and the impacts on the lender and borrower.

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is one of the most important and well-known statutes to bankruptcy practitioners. This section of the Bankruptcy Code protects a good faith asset purchaser who purchases assets from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate from having the sale unwound when the sale (or an aspect of the sale) is challenged by an appeal.

“within three (3) business days of termination of the mediation, the Debtors shall publicly disclose the terms of the last offers extended by each of the Mediation Parties, respectively.”[Fn. 1]

Say what!?

Whoever heard of such a thing—a requirement that the “last offers” of the mediating parties be publicly disclosed?

And this requirement is in a “consensual” mediation order entered in the Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, bankruptcy.[Fn. 2]

Context

Here’s the context.[Fn. 3]

On April 17, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Matter of RE Palm Springs II, L.L.C., 2023 WL 2966520 (5th Cir. April 17, 2023), held that a senior lender who uses economic leverage and asserts its legal rights to squeeze out a junior lender remains a good faith purchaser entitled to declare an appeal moot based on a sale under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code. Key to the Fifth Circuit’s opinion was the fact that the actions in question were disclosed to the bankruptcy court in advance of it making the section 363(m) finding.

Facts

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.