It is common for E&P companies in chapter 11 to seek to reject burdensome midstream contracts under Bankruptcy Code § 365. Rejection has not been permitted by bankruptcy courts where such agreements create enforceable covenants running with the land (“CRWL”) because a CRWL is a real property interest of the midstream gatherer, not just a contract right. Accordingly, before a debtor can seek to reject midstream agreements, the bankruptcy court must first determine whether an enforceable CRWL exists.

On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey’s order confirming the Tribune Company’s chapter 11 plan.¹ As a matter of first impression, the Court held that the prohibition against “unfair discrimination” in cramdown plans supplants the requirement that subordination agreements be enforced in bankruptcy. The decision comes more than eight years after Judge Carey initially entered the Bankruptcy Court order, and follows years of appeals by the senior noteholders.

The question regarding whether a trademark licensee may continue to use a license after a debtor-licensor rejects the license in its bankruptcy case has now been answered. On Monday, May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down an 8-1 opinion in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that a creditor whose rights have been affected by operation of the Bankruptcy Code may nevertheless be “unimpaired” under a chapter 11 plan of reorganization.

On May 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit” or the “Court”) rendered a much anticipated opinion (the “Opinion”),¹ reversing the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit non-consensual third-party releases of direct claims and affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the

On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)¹ affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.

On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)¹ affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.

In Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mallinckrodt PLC,¹ the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a debtor that purchased intellectual property under a prepetition asset purchase agreement could continue to retain and use the property post-confirmation while discharging its obligations to pay any future royalties otherwise owed. The decision highlights the importance of structuring transactions up-front to minimize the consequences of future bankruptcies.

Background

On September 8, 2022, a three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) reversed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) when it determined that lenders of a syndicated loan facility to Revlon, Inc.