(Published in the Fall 2023 issue of The Bankers' Statement)
On April 19, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Section 363(m) is a not a jurisdictional provision. Thus, challenges to Section 363 sales that have closed can be heard on appeal notwithstanding a Section 363(m) finding in the sale order, so long as the appellate decision does not affect the validity of the sale to a good faith purchaser.1
This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, unanimously holding that a debtor cannot discharge a debt obtained by fraud even if the debtor himself/herself did not personally commit the fraud.
In a sudden and stunning collapse, FTX, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency exchange, run by 30-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried along with more than 130 entities affiliated with FTX, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware on Friday.[1] Separately, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas appointed a Bahamas-based provisional liquidator for the controlling FTX entity and froze its assets along with
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a dispute between Mall of America and Transform Holdco LLC as to whether a lease Transform acquired at a bankruptcy sale can be challenged after that sale has closed. Sections 363(b)(1) and 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code are at play here. Section 363(b)(1) generally permits a bankruptcy trustee, after notice and hearing, to use, sell, or lease property that belongs to the bankruptcy estate outside of the ordinary course of business.
On Aug. 30, 2021, in a significant decision that paves the way for additional substantial recoveries for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals preserved the ability of Irving H. Picard, SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), to pursue $3.75 billion of stolen customer property currently in the hands of participants in the global financial markets.
On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.
In most civil litigation, a party typically has no right to an appeal until the entire case is fully and finally decided as to all parties. The United States Supreme Court recently made clear, however, that bankruptcy litigation is different than most civil litigation when it unanimously held that a bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from the automatic stay is a final appealable order. SeeRitzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, ___U.S.___, 205 L.Ed.2d 419, 422 (2020).
On October 10, 2019, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio (OHSB) entered General Order 30-2 implementing Complex Chapter 11 procedures. Under General Order 30-2, a case is eligible to be a complex case if (1) it is filed under Chapter 11 of the Code; (2) it is not filed by an individual debtor, as a single asset real estate case, or as a small business case as defined in § 101(51C) of the Code; and (3) the debt of the debtor or the aggregate debt of all affiliated debtors is at least $10 million or it involves a debtor with publicly traded debt or equity.
In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?