In the Ultimate Escapes bankruptcy case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the “business judgment rule” may protect fiduciaries who negotiate and enter into unconventional financing agreements in an attempt to save the company. In short, a failed business strategy by itself does not lead to liability for breach of fiduciary duty.
On March 2nd, after much media speculation, Sports Authority commenced a case under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In its initial bankruptcy filings, the company’s CFO announced that it will close up to 200 of its 464 stores over the course of the bankruptcy case.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar 15, 2016)
The bankruptcy court denies the department’s motion to reconsider the judgment finding the debtor was entitled to a discharge of the debt to the department. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Department: Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Heather M. Crockett, Maricel E.V. Skiles, Spencer W. Tanner
Attorneys for Debtor: Redman Lugwig, Keith Eirik Gifford
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida determination that the authorized swapping of parts among aircraft to maximize efficiency “did not and could not commingle the participants’ ownership interests.” In re Avantair Inc., No. 15-10303, slip op. (Eleventh Circuit, February 3, 2016). The ruling helps to clarify uncertainties regarding the legal status of fractional ownership arrangements.
Brief Overview
Bankruptcy is a process that permits people to discharge debts, but not all debts are dischargeable. In a recent opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) reversed a U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Bankruptcy Court”) ruling that a state court criminal restitution claim is dischargeable.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley C. Chapman in New York permitted Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation to reject three gas gathering and handling agreements with Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC and HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC. All of the agreements are governed by Texas law.
When a business files for bankruptcy, it can be a confusing and frustrating time for the debtor’s creditors. If an investment firm reaches out with an offer to purchase a creditor’s claim against the debtor, it may appear to be a great opportunity to be paid at least some cash now. The sale of a bankruptcy claim may also be attractive because it allows the creditor to avoid the time and expense involved in protecting its rights in the bankruptcy case.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman ruled last week in the chapter 11 case of Sabine Oil & Gas that Sabine could utilize the U.S.
On March 8, 2016, Judge Shelly Chapman, presiding over the Chapter 11 cases of Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation and its affiliates ("Sabine"), granted Sabine's motion to reject certain midstream agreements between Sabine and Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering ("Nordheim") and between Sabine and HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC ("HPIP"). Although the ruling as a procedural matter determined only whether rejection of the agreements was justified under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court's analysis of the agreements under Texas law presaged a subsequent ruling on the nature of the agreements.
The oil and gas industry is in the midst of a transition, with prices falling as supply outpaces current demand. With global economic weakness and growing competition from alternative energy sources, the expectation is for continued headwinds. Low prices have caused numerous producers to default on their indebtedness and many to seek financial restructuring, including filing for bankruptcy protection.