The Bottom Line
Confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization generally requires the consent of each impaired class of creditors.[1] But, upon satisfaction of additional statutory requirements, a plan proponent can obtain confirmation of a “cramdown” plan over the dissent of one or more classes of creditors as long as “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted th
Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin have been touted as everything from a tool that will revolutionize commerce to “the very worst of speculative capitalism.”[1] Less attention has been given to their practical application vis-à-vis commercial and insolvency law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the trial court from considering the plaintiff’s claims because she was not challenging or seeking to set aside an underlying non-judicial mortgage foreclosure proceeding under Colorado law.
Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit remanded to the trial court to determine what effect, if any, the non-judicial proceeding had under the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.
Toys “R” Us has offered certain of its landlords an unprecedented payment package in exchange for more time to decide which leases it will keep and which it will dispose of in its chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The package includes payment of “additional rent,” including common-area maintenance, insurance, and real estate tax arrearages under rejected leases, amounts that ordinarily would not be paid in full. The deal may serve as a model for the treatment of landlords in future large retail bankruptcy cases.
In the recently decided case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit took a hardline position that trademark license rights are not protected in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy Code section 365(n) permits a licensee to continue to use intellectual property even if the debtor rejects the license agreement.
Context
Ascent Resources Marcellus Holdings, LLC, along with two of its affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-10265). The Debtors, based in Oklahoma City, OK, operate as an oil and natural gas E&P in the Marcellus Shale basin in the eastern United States.
Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is a powerful tool which enables a debtor to reject certain contracts it finds unnecessary or burdensome to its reorganization.