In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit held that only parties with the right to pursue a breach of contract claim under an executory contract or unexpired lease have the right to demand a cure payment in the event the executory contract or lease is assumed by a debtor in bankruptcy, affirming previous decisions by the bankruptcy and district courts, and limiting the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 365(b)(1)(A).

Wandeldarlehen sind ein bewährtes und seit Jahren fest etabliertes Finanzierungsinstrument für Start-ups. Ein Wandeldarlehen ist ein (in aller Regel unbesichertes) Darlehen verbunden mit einem Recht oder auch einer Pflicht zur späteren Wandlung der Darlehensforderung (zzgl. aufgelaufener Zinsen) (zumeist im Zuge der nächsten Finanzierungsrunde) in neu an dem Start-up auszugebende Gesellschaftsanteile. Hierbei werden Wandeldarlehen regelmäßig als flexibles Instrument gewählt, um mit geringem Aufwand eine Finanzierung zu erreichen.

Globalisation means that the effects of a business entering insolvency proceedings rarely stay within the territorial confines of a single jurisdiction; one need only look to the recent cryptocurrency bankruptcies as evidence of this. Cross-border insolvencies are no longer the preserve of large multinational corporation failures. Globalisation and the advent of digitisation mean that even small enterprises have customers, assets, and suppliers in multiple countries. This is particularly so across Asia.

On April 24, 2023, the First Circuit’s opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin came up for oral argument before the Supreme Court. At issue in this appeal is whether this provision’s “abrogat[ion]” of sovereign immunity “as to a governmental unit,” defined to include any “other … domestic government” in section 101(27), embodies a congressional intention to revoke the sovereign immunity of a Native American tribe with sufficient and obvious clarity to be construed as such a revocation.

• Introduction
• Background

私は、当事務所にて事務職員として勤務していますが、前職 は大阪地方裁判所の裁判所書記官として、裁判所での倒産 事務に携わっておりました。現在も当事務所の倒産事件につ き弁護士をサポートしていますので、元書記官の視点から、今 回は、債権届出書の記載事項のうち、届出債権者の特定につ いてお話いたします。

倒産手続が開始すると、裁判所から債権者に対して通知が なされるとともに、定められた期間内に、倒産債務者（破産者、 再生債務者または更生会社）に対して有する債権を裁判所 に届け出るよう求められます（ただし、破産手続の場合は、破 産法31条2項の規定により、配当の見込みが立つまで債権届 出を不要とする「留保型」が採用される場合もあります。）。

Non-profits are just like for-profit companies in that they can be faced with significant financial challenges for which bankruptcy provides an opportunity for restructuring or liquidation for the benefit of their creditors and other stakeholders. Many times, particularly in the areas of healthcare and religious institutions, non-profit bankruptcies raise complex and novel insolvency issues. This blog post discusses four of the unique aspects of non-profit bankruptcies.

1. Non-profits are not subject to involuntary bankruptcy.

It’s a defense v. offense distinction:

• Defense—An objection and counterclaim designed to diminish or zero-out a proof of claim in bankruptcy is not subject to arbitration; but
• Offense—An objection or counterclaim designed to do anything more . . . can be compelled to arbitrate.

That’s the essence of a recent opinion in Johnson v. S.A.I.L. LLC (In re Johnson), Adv. No. 22 -172, Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court (issued March 28, 2023; Doc. 18). What follows is a summary of that opinion.

Facts

On April 19, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, in which the Court considered whether 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) is jurisdictional. A unanimous Court held that § 363(m) is not jurisdictional, determining that the language of the statute “takes as a given the exercise of judicial power over any authorization under § 363(b) or § 363(c).” This determination is based upon the requirement that for a statutory precondition to be jurisdictional, Congress must clearly state the intent.