The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a debtor’s appeal of a sale order was statutorily mooted by Subsection 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that: (1) while the Bankruptcy Code bars relief for an appeal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), it does not defeat jurisdiction; and (2) Subsection 363(m) applies to appeals from any sale authorized by the bankruptcy court, not just those properly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of October 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the amendments in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) by the Government of India. Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

Example: A obtains judgment against B and C for RM500,000. Are B and C liable to equal proportions of the judgment sum, i.e., RM250,000 each, or are they each liable for RM500,000?

This distinction between "joint liability" and "joint and several liability" was recently clarified by the Federal Court.

Brief facts

On November 17, 2021, Alto Maipo SpA, a Chile-based run-of-the-river project, which uses the natural flow of a river to generate electricity without the construction of a dam, along with subsidiary Alto Maipo Delaware LLC, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-11507). The company reports $1 billion to $10 billion in both assets and liabilities.

INTRODUCTION

This newsletter covers key updates about developments in the Insolvency Law during the month of October 2021.

We have summarized the key judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India (SC), National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), the National Company Law Tribunals (NCLT) and the amendments in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) by the Government of India. Please see below the summary of the relevant regulatory developments.

In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).

Section 130(2) of the Act

In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12 F.4th 171 (2d Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived litigation filed by the trustee administering the assets of defunct investment firm Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC ("MIS") seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in allegedly fraudulent transfers made to former MIS customers and certain other defendants as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the aftermath of 2017’s Hurricane Irma, wide swaths of Florida lost power. At The Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, 12 elderly patients succumbed to the heat when the skilled nursing facility’s air conditioning system failed following the electrical outage. In response, Florida’s legislature passed a law requiring all nursing homes and assisted living facilities to have backup generators capable of maintaining cool temperatures.

Whether the pre-Bankruptcy Code "solvent debtor exception" requiring the payment of postpetition interest to dissenting unsecured creditors under a chapter 11 plan survived the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978 has been the subject of a handful of recent court rulings. This is, perhaps, most notably true of the chapter 11 case of Ultra Petroleum Corp. in connection with a protracted battle over the debtor's obligation to pay make-whole premiums to unsecured noteholders.

In yet another chapter in the tortured saga of the fallout from the failed 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of media giant The Tribune Co. ("Tribune") in a transaction orchestrated by real-estate mogul Sam Zell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit largely upheld lower court dismissals of claims asserted by Tribune's chapter 11 liquidation trustee against various shareholders, officers, directors, employees, and financial advisors for, among other things, avoidance and recovery of fraudulent and preferential transfers, breach of fiduciary duties, and professional malpractice.