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

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]: