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.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.

While the inclusion of interest amounts in ‘financial debt’, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), is clearly provided for in the IBC, the interest component in the case of operational debt has always been a point of contention.

Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its latest bankruptcy opinion in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s rule against invalidating 363 sales after appeal is not an iron-clad jurisdictional bar, but rather a mere statutory limitation.[1]

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