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.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross sitting in Delaware recently approved J.G. Wentworth’s (the “Debtor’s”) Chapter 11 plan after overruling an objection from the U.S. Trustee regarding third-party releases. The Debtor’s Chapter 11 reorganization plan was the second it has brought before the Delaware bankruptcy court in the last ten years.

Various business formations and financial transactions utilize alternative entity forms, such as limited liability companies (“LLC”), limited partnerships, master limited partnerships, limited liability partnerships, limited liability limited partnerships—you get the idea. In turn, commercial borrowers may offer—and lenders may request—interests in such entities as collateral. This blog post focuses on LLC membership interests (“LLC Interests”) as collateral.

The New Year brings with it new changes to the bankruptcy code. These recent rule changes apply to any case filed after December 1, 2017, and may apply retroactively to pending proceedings in those instances where it would be “just and practicable.” Although many of the changes deal with consumer bankruptcies, key changes will affect secured creditors.

Changes concerning proof of claim deadlines

On September 22, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that § 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) provides a creditors’ committee with an “unconditional right to intervene” in an adversary proceeding.[1]  In reaching this conclusion, the court reversed the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s order denying an intervention motion and distinguished its own precedent, on which the District Court had relied.  This decision further bolsters the right of creditors’ com

In one of the first decisions issued this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court addressed an issue of first impression. In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, n/k/a Old Cold LLC, No. 16-9016 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), the First Circuit held that the omission of trademarks from the definition of “intellectual property” in Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code, as incorporated by Section 365(n), leaves a trademark licensee with nothing more than a claim for damages upon the rejection of its license under Section 365(a).

On January 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not cover non-judicial foreclosures in Colorado.

The United States Supreme Court adopted revisions to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”), which went into effect on December 1, 2017. The revised Rules apply to all bankruptcy cases commenced on or after December 1, 2017, and may apply to cases commenced prior to such date if application is determined by the bankruptcy court to be “just and practicable.”

On December 11, 2017, in a case entitled In re Iliceto, 1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision,2 which held that Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ("Nationstar" or the "Creditor") received notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise it that its status as a secured creditor was being challenged by Robert Iliceto ("Iliceto" or the "Debtor") in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding,3 even though the Debtor did not notify Nationstar that he was objecting to the validity of its mortgage.