Following the rule that swap agreements should be netted after contract termination, a New York bankruptcy court has held that such agreements also should be netted following rejection in bankruptcy.
“Although rejection of an agreement does not equal termination,” Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez acknowledged in In re Enron Corp., 349 B.R. 96 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2006), “this does not affect the determination of…rejection damages. Termination of swap agreements generally requires that the parties’ positions be netted.”
“Rejection leads to a similar result,” he stated.
Can the nondebtor party to an executory contract withhold services to the debtor postpetition if the debtor breached the contract prepetition?
Many view this as a settled area of bankruptcy law, and believe that the answer is “no” as long as the debtor is performing postpetition. Commentators of this view question how a debtor could ever reorganize if nondebtors did not have to perform under contracts postpetition, particularly if the debtor’s business is entirely dependant upon the contract at issue.
Executive Summary New York bankruptcy judge allows Sabine Oil & Gas to reject gathering agreements over the objections of midstream companies, finding that the covenants do not run with the land.
Executive Summary
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has established March 31, 2016, as the Claims Bar Date in the Reliance Insurance Company Liquidation. Policyholders and claimants may think that if they file a claim on March 31, 2016, the claim will be deemed timely filed. They would be wrong.
March 30 Is the Key Date
The Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania has placed Lincoln General Insurance Company into liquidation in Pennsylvania. As a result, the Insurance Commissioner as Liquidator takes over the property, business, and affairs of Lincoln General; collects assets; resolves claims; and ultimately, distributes assets to creditors, including policyholders and claimants.
In a September 18, 2015 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying administrative claim treatment to Hudson Energy Services, LLC (“Hudson”) for its retail sales of electricity to the debtor.1 The decision does not address any “safe-harbor” or forward contract issues, but is among a number of decisions providing for inconsistent treatment of such sales.
In a recent decision related to the SemCrude bankruptcy, the federal district court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings on the efficacy of certain common risk-mitigation tools used in the energy trading and marketing business – namely product payment netting and cross-product setup upon liquidation and closeout. The decision comes amid long-running challenges from producers who had sold product to the SemGroup entities on credit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that the bankruptcy court’s exclusive jurisdiction to dispose of estate property did not preclude the enforcement of an arbitration provision.
Is a landlord’s ability to recover repair costs chargeable to the lessee limited because such repair costs are included in “damages resulting from the termination of a lease of real property” pursuant to section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code? In In re Foamex International, Inc., 2007 WL 1461954 (Bankr. D. Del. May 16, 2007), the bankruptcy judge said “Yes.”
Lenders take note—a state court has held that in some circumstances a refinancing transaction can extinguish an original guarantee.