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.

Over the past two years, there has been an interesting trend of courts, in certain circumstances, borrowing from principles of insolvency law when determining analogous questions of trust law. Most recently, the private wealth industry has seen this very application in connection with the now infamous proceedings relating to the trust known as the Ironzar II Trust[1].

중국 기업파산법> 제5조 제2항은 “외국법원의 파산 판결, 결정이 채무자의 중국 영역 내의 재산과 관련되어 인 민법원에 승인 및 집행할 것을 신청 또는 청구하는 경우, 인민법원은 중국이 체결하였거나 가입한 국제조약, 또 는 호혜의 원칙에 따라 심사를 진행하여, 중국 법률의 기본원칙에 위배되지 아니하며 국가주권, 안전 및 사회공공 이익을 훼손하지 않으며 중국 영역 내의 채권자의 합법적 권익을 침해하지 않는 경우에는 승인 및 집행 결정을 할 수 있다”고 규정하고 있습니다. 근래에 중국법원들이 이 조항에 근거하여 외국법원의 파산 결정을 승인하는 사례 들이 등장하고 있어 그 구체적인 내용을 소개합니다.

1. 싱가폴 사례 - 하문(厦门)해사법원 사건

On April 19, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC that Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not jurisdictional. The decision requires parties timely to invoke that provision, or else risk forfeiting its protections. The decision also continues the Supreme Court’s trend of interpreting statutes to be non-jurisdictional (and thus waivable or forfeitable) in the absence of a clear congressional statement to the contrary.

Background

April, 2023 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ Bombay High Court: Arbitration clause can be invoked by assignee of rights under contract. * NCLT: Dissenting secured creditor cannot be treated higher than other creditors under Section 53 of the IBC just because they enjoy security interest. * Bombay High Court: “One-ness of interest”- the touch-stone for defendant to be transposed as plaintiff in case of part abandonment of suit claim. April, 2023 http://www.vaishlaw.com/ I.

On April 19, 2023 the Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 528 U.S ____ (2023), holding that the limitations contained in section 363(m) of the United States Bankruptcy Code are not jurisdictional. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only resolved a split amongst the circuits, but it also cleared up a foggy corner of arguably one of the most consequential sections of the Bankruptcy Code.

What Happened

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

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.