Supreme Court of the United States

Name: MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco
Author: Supreme Court of the United States

MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

Summary

“MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco”, published in 2023, is a work by Supreme Court of the United States. It explores elements such as Transform, lease and authorization.

Quotes from MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (Supreme Court of the United States)

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ Appealing to “traditional principles of in rem jurisdiction,” Transform reasons that the transfer of a res to a good-faith purchaser removes it from the bankruptcy estate, and so from the court’s in rem jurisdiction over the estate. Id., at 24, 39–40. And it thus concludes that §363 (m) is jurisdictional, because it operates to ensure that (absent a stay) courts cannot disturb a transfer to a good-faith purchaser, thereby “confirm [ing] ” the traditional in rem truth that “the bankruptcy court cannot reach the res, and thus has no basis for the exercise of in rem jurisdiction over it.” ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ Sometimes, the court’s exercise of power may not accomplish all the appellant wishes, because the reversal or modification of a covered authorization may not “affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization” to a good-faith purchaser or lessee under certain prescribed circumstances. §363 (m) . Thus, the provision consists of a caveated constraint on the effect of a reversal or modification. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ Nor does the Code lack for examples of such ties: Consider 11 U. S. C. §305 (c) , which directs that certain judicial orders are “not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals” under §158 (d) (the Code provision that recognizes the courts of appeals’ jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters) . [6]
It also does not suffice that §363 (m) issues directions, as Transform occasionally intimates. We routinely hold that congressional commands are nonjurisdictional despite emphatic directives. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ What is more, to the extent that a lower court can act with respect to the res at all, surely it can only do so while exercising congressionally conferred jurisdiction. Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U. S. 300, 307 (1995) . Applied here, that principle puts Transform on the horns of a dilemma. If a court, consistent with §363 (m) , issues a judgment affecting a consummated sale’s validity that draws on any in rem jurisdiction the Code confers in §1334, that conferral authorizes the exercise of in rem power with respect to a res that has left the estate. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ In the end, then, Transform’s claims about traditional in rem jurisdiction are red herrings. Section 363 (m) is what matters, and Congress has not clearly stated that the provision is a limit on judicial power, rather than a mere restriction on the effects of a valid exercise of that power when a party successfully appeals a covered authorization. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ And, per Transform, not only did Sears waive any such avoidance claims in the Sale Order, but the time for using §549 has now expired. The upshot for Transform’s mootness argument is that no legal vehicle remains available for undoing the lease transfer, and therefore MOAC cannot possibly obtain any effectual relief, irrespective of our answer to the question presented. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Supreme Court of the United States, MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (2023)

“ An unmet jurisdictional precondition deprives courts of power to hear the case, thus requiring immediate dismissal. Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, 583 U. S. 17, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 2–3) . And jurisdictional rules are impervious to excuses like waiver or forfeiture. Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 3) . Courts must also raise and enforce them sua sponte. Fort Bend County, 587 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7) .
This case exemplifies why the distinction between nonjurisdictional and jurisdictional preconditions matters. ”

Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Quotes from MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco (Supreme Court of the United States)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature