In a recent decision, the Second Circuit held that only parties with the right to pursue a breach of contract claim under an executory contract or unexpired lease have the right to demand a cure payment in the event the executory contract or lease is assumed by a debtor in bankruptcy, affirming previous decisions by the bankruptcy and district courts, and limiting the scope of Bankruptcy Code § 365(b)(1)(A).

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.

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.

© 2023 Greenberg Traurig, LLP Alert | Troubled Bank Task Force April 2023 The 2023 Banking Crisis: Updated Questions & Answers for Insured and Uninsured Depositors, Other Affected Parties Silicon Valley Bank Failure, Receivership and Sale On March 10, 2023, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation closed Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, CA (SVB) and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) receiver of SVB.

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