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

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.

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.

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.

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.

In In re Schubert, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding because the appellants had failed the “person-aggrieved” test for bankruptcy appellate standing. Had they challenged this standard’s existence, two of the three judges likely would have “abrogate[d]” it; the third would have salvaged it. This decision’s dicta represents perhaps the first outright rejection of bankruptcy’s appellate standing touchstone based on the Supreme Court’s analysis in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S.

Sometimes a debtor is liable for fraud that she did not personally commit,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 22, 2023, when the debtor’s business partner had deceptively obtained money by fraud, thereby making the innocent partner liable for a nondischargeable debt under Bankruptcy Code (Code) §523(a)(2)(A) (“any debt from money “obtained by … fraud” not dischargeable and survives debtor’s bankruptcy). Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 2023 WL 2144417 (Feb. 22, 2023).

Say what?!.

“Hypothetical jurisdiction” for a bankruptcy appeal?!

Who knew? I sure didn’t.

But it is, apparently, a thing . . . and it may even be real.

At U.S. Supreme Court

A newly filed Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court is Waleski v. Montgomery, McCraken, Walker & Rhodes, LLP, Case No. 22-914 (Petition filed 3/16/2023).

–The Question

The Question Presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Waleski v Montgomery is this:

A chapter 11 plan may be modified after votes have been solicited on the plan, but prior to confirmation, without providing creditors and interest holders with an amended disclosure statement and another opportunity to vote on the modified plan, provided, among other things, that the modifications do not adversely affect creditors or interest holders who previously voted to accept the plan.