What Happened

In a ruling issued just yesterday, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC et al., 598 U.S. ----, 2023 WL 2992693 (2023) (“MOAC”), the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) held that Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) is not jurisdictional in terms of appellate review of asset sale orders, but rather, that such section only contains limitations on the relief that may be afforded on appeal. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is often relied upon by purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy case as providing finality to any sale order.

Johnson & Johnson filed bankruptcy back in 2021 (In re LTL Management, Case No. 21-30589, New Jersey Bankruptcy Court).

That bankruptcy is now dismissed—on order of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

So, Johnson & Johnson refiles its bankruptcy (In re LTL Management, Case No. 23-12825, New Jersey Bankruptcy Court).

New and Improved

Here’s what’s new and improved about the second bankruptcy[fn. 1]:

On March 14, 2023, Judge Ashely M. Chan of the U.S.

“The trustee may avoid . . . any obligation . . . incurred by the debtor, that was madeor incurred“ with actual fraudulent intent or as constructive fraud.

–From § 548 of Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added).

Similar language is contained in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act—and in its predecessor acts—for 100+ years. [Fn. 1]

But actions to avoid debts as fraudulent transfers are rare—and largely unknown, it seems.

A Bad Experience

Boy Scouts of American achieved a confirmed plan of reorganization in its bankruptcy.

That confirmation is now affirmed on appeal by the U.S. District Court in Delaware[fn. 1]—and is heading to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.

The District Court’s affirming opinion is 155 pages long and highly detailed. This article tries to summarizes the opinion’s highlights—attempting to make the complex clear.

100% Payment Plan

The core of the opinion, around which most everything else revolves, is this:

Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

Say what?!.

“Hypothetical jurisdiction” for a bankruptcy appeal?!

Who knew? I sure didn’t.

But it is, apparently, a thing . . . and it may even be real.

At U.S. Supreme Court

A newly filed Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court is Waleski v. Montgomery, McCraken, Walker & Rhodes, LLP, Case No. 22-914 (Petition filed 3/16/2023).

–The Question

The Question Presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Waleski v Montgomery is this:

Since 1993, decisions out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consistently adopted the aggregate “rent approach” for calculating lease rejection damages in bankruptcy proceedings. But in Bankruptcy Judge Wiles’ recent decision in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, he departed from the “rent approach” in favor of the “time approach,” which is based on the time remaining under the lease rather than factoring in the total or aggregate rent still owed under the lease.

What happens when a creditor class fails or refuses to vote on confirmation of a Subchapter V plan? Does that prevent a consensual confirmation?

We have a recent answer from In re Creason, Case No. 22-00988, Western Michigan Bankruptcy Court (opinion issued 2/23/2023).

Facts

The Subchapter V Debtor is a sole-proprietor dentist.