(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

A "double-dip" structure is considered a way to allow some creditors to have multiple claims against key obligors arising out of the same underlying transactions. These additional claims could improve their position relative to other creditors in a bankruptcy or liquidation.

Is an involuntary bankruptcy, filed by an owner/creditor of the Debtor, filed in good faith or in bad faith?

That’s the question before the U.S. Supreme Court on which it denied certiorari on October 30, 2023 (Wortley v. Juranitch, Case No. 23-211).

Here’s the gist of the case.

Your customer, who has always paid on time, has started to fall behind on payments and maybe has even started to short pay invoices. When you inquire about what is going on, your customer has a million excuses but assures you that everything is fine. On the one hand, you want to continue to do business with this long-standing customer. On the other hand, you are worried about the growing accounts receivable and a potential bankruptcy filing by your customer. How can you protect your business?

Key Issues

Two recent cases from New Zealand demonstrate how an equitable lien can arise in insolvency to elevate the interest of unsecured purchasers of goods to secured status.

Key takeouts

【東京地判令和５年３月２７日（令和４年（ワ）１８６１０号 商標権に基づく差止請求権不存在確認請求事件）】

【キーワード】

商標権、商標権侵害、実質的違法性、並行輸入、不存在確認請求、破産管財人

【事案の概要】

オンキヨーホームエンターテイメント株式会社（以下、「破産会社」又は「オンキヨー」という。）の破産管財人（以下、「本破産管財人」という場合がある。）が、パイオニア株式会（以下、「被告」という場合がある。）が保有する商標権が付され、香港にある倉庫に保有しているスピーカー等の在庫品（以下、「本件在庫商品」という。）を処分しようと、パイオニアに対し、商標権に基づく差止請求権不存在確認請求訴訟を提起した事案である。 結論としては、本破産管財人が敗訴した。このため、本破産管財人は本件在庫商品を処分（販売）することができず、破産財団の増殖を図ることができなかったと言える。

（※判旨及び本破産管財人のウェブサイトに基づき作成）

In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed and applied its holding from OGA Charters. In doing so, it blocked (via a bankruptcy adversary proceeding) one set of plaintiffs from keeping an insured’s entire policy limit, which the insurer paid as per Texas’ “first come first served” approach to time-limited policy limits demands.

The English Court has, for only the second time, made a compensation order under the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 against a disqualified director.

Background

The U.S. Trustee is on a crusade to eradicate every type of third-party release from all Chapter 11 bankruptcy plans—no matter what the facts or circumstances might be.

It’s a policy based on the idea that, if the Bankruptcy Code doesn’t specifically and explicitly authorize something, then that something cannot be done . . . ever . . . under any circumstances . . . no matter what . . . period . . . end of story.

We now have another manifestation of that bright-line and unyielding position. Fortunately, the Bankruptcy Court rejects the U.S. Trustee’s objection.

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce has launched a new public consultation on the treatment of digital assets in English insolvency law.

Crypto assets are 'property'

In November 2019, the UKJT published its seminal legal statement on the status of crypto assets and smart contracts. Since then, there has been widespread acceptance that crypto assets are 'property' for the purposes of English law. And the Law Commission has recently proposed a new, third category of personal property rights to capture digital assets.

Impact on insolvency law