In MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code―which limits the effect of certain appeals on orders authorizing the sale or lease of bankruptcy estate property―is a jurisdictional provision.

Artemis Amalia Metaxa, Chrysostomides Advocates & Legal Consultants

This is an extract from the 2023 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

This is an Insight article, written by a selected partner as part of GRR's co-published content. Read more on Insight

In summary

Introduction:

The Australian Government introduced two significant new insolvency solutions following the enactment of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020 (Cth), as part of the federal government’s JobMaker Plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first of these solutions is the Simplified Liquidation Process (SLP) which allows eligible small companies to participate in a faster and more financially commercial liquidation process.

The benefits of the process, compared to traditional liquidation, include:

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 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.

It is generally accepted that the push towards a greener future requires robust legislation, and in the case of common law jurisdictions ,supportive legal precedent which will assist in framing the landscape for the enforcement of environmental remediation obligations.

On April 19, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion inMOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S. (2023), reversing the Second Circuit decision and determining that the limitations on appeals of bankruptcy sale orders provided in section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code are not jurisdictional. Rather section 363(m) merely provides a "caveated constraint" on the appellant’s remedies on such appeals.

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]:

Key Points