In a recent development, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed against its decision in State Tax Officer v Rainbow Papers Ltd., which had disturbed the settled position that in insolvency resolution proceedings, statutory dues (including tax claims) fall in the category of operational debt. Instead, the Supreme Court held that statutory dues qualify as debts owed to a secured creditor, and a resolution plan that ignores such debts is liable to be rejected.

Introduction

(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

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.

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.

Celsius’ retail borrowers finally have an answer on who owns the cryptocurrency they deposited into Celsius in exchange for a loan from Celsius – spoiler alert: on November 13, 2023 the bankruptcy court held that Celsius’ terms of service “clearly and unambiguously” gave Celsius ownership of retail borrowers’ cryptocurrency. The bankruptcy court’s decision follows its January 2023 decision which similarly held that the cryptocurrency of Celsius’ “Earn” customers also belonged to Celsius because the terms of service similarly unambiguously granted Celsius title ownership.

On November 3, 2023, the Court in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case of the City of Chester, Pennsylvania issued its ruling in an adversary proceeding challenging the perfection of the liens securing certain revenue bonds issued by the City.¹ Confirming the municipal bond market’s longstanding understanding, the Court concluded that the liens on revenues were prope

Introduction

A recent Commercial Court decision has raised an intriguing question of private international law: can a foreign judgment be enforced in England and Wales if it is not enforceable in the country where it was given?