Both the First Energy Solutions and PG&E bankruptcies have seen proceedings regarding power purchase and similar agreements (PPAs) that raise this question.

Background

Contracts often contain provisions that enable a party to terminate or modify the contract based on the other party's bankruptcy filing, insolvency or deteriorating financial condition. In general, the Bankruptcy Code renders these types of provisions (sometimes referred to as "ipso facto" clauses) ineffective. Specifically, under section 365(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added):

When a party files for bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code imposes an automatic stay of litigation against a debtor for claims arising prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy case. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). Where there is a basis for bankruptcy jurisdiction in federal court, federal law also permits parties to a state court action to remove the state court action to the federal district court for the district in which the state court action is pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).

All too often the task of procuring and renewing D&O insurance at a portfolio company is assigned to the portfolio company’s CFO or Controller, who employs an insurance broker to find the best price for the amount of coverage deemed appropriate by the broker. When such insurance is procured and thereafter renewed, the CFO/Controller simply reports to the board the fact of the procurement/renewal and few questions about the terms of coverage are discussed at the board level. This can be a big mistake.

There have been two significant developments in the ongoing restructuring case for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. First, as was widely expected, District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered orders on February 4 and 5, respectively, approving the Commonwealth’s entry into the Commonwealth-COFINA settlement (which we reported on here) and confirming the Title III Plan of Adjustment for COFINA.

Those who file UCC records often provide the required collateral description on an attached schedule or exhibit rather than the designated field on the financing statement. This well-established and accepted practice can save time in the filing process and reduce transcription errors. When providing the description using an attached document, the financing statement collateral field will typically incorporate the document by reference using words such as “See Schedule A attached” or words to that effect.

When a creditor is looming, the debtor may be tempted to give away assets to friendly parties so that the creditor will not have recourse to seize as many assets. This was the impetus behind our laws today that hold such actions as voidable transactions (also known as fraudulent transfers) when the intent behind such actions is motivated by the goal of depriving the creditor of reachable assets, or when such actions render the debtor insolvent or the debtor was already insolvent.

There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay forthe product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

In the In re FirstEnergy Solutions Corporation bankruptcy cases,[1] the court recently issued an opinion narrowing the number of situations in which a fixed

I have been reading Storm Lake, a book by Art Cullen, the editor of the Storm Lake (Iowa) Times and a 2017 Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing. In his book, Cullen chronicles the ways that agriculture and his hometown of Storm Lake have been transformed over the years. What strikes me most about the book is how the business cycles of boom and bust still exist in agriculture today and are little changed from when I was growing up on a farm in Iowa decades ago. It appears that we are in or entering a new bust cycle in production agriculture.

The Supreme Court held oral argument earlier today in the Mission Products v. Tempnology case, on the issue of the effect of rejection by a licensor of a trademark license on the licensee’s rights.