We recently reported on Delaware Judge Christopher Sontchi’s decision in the Extraction bankruptcy to permit the rejection of midstream gathering agreements.1 Fellow Delaware Judge Karen Owens followed Extraction in the Southland Royalty decision issued November 13, 2020.2 Judge Owens determined that Southland Royalty Company, LLC (“Southland”), an E&P operator with assets primarily in Wyoming, could reject the gas gathering agreement and sell its assets free and clear of the agreement.
In the latest saga concerning “covenants running with the land” and the rejection of midstream gathering agreements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), the Honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the Court), issued three1 decisions holding that certain of Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (Extraction) gathering agreements with its midstream service providers did not create real property interests and, thus, that Extraction could reject such gathering agreements in its chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
My latest contribution to BloombergLaw was the following piece on some of the unique issues and challenges presented for self-insured employers and their plan administrators when those employers seek (or contemplate) bankruptcy relief. In brief:
Potentially casting retail landlords against their debtor-tenants, a bankruptcy judge in the Eastern District of Virginia--an increasingly popular destination for major retail bankruptcy filings--allowed Pier 1 and its affiliates to effectively "shelter in place" while the majority of its stores remain closed across the country.
Edgewater Growth Capital Partners LP v. H.I.G. Capital, Inc., 68 A.3d 197 (2013)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Ad Hoc Group of Vitro Noteholders v. Vitro S.A.B. de C.V., 701 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
Inre Brooke Capital Corp., 2012 WL 4793010 (Bankr. D. Kan., Oct. 5, 2012)
Inre Zais Investment Grade Limited VII, 455 B.R. 839 (2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.
In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.
In re General Growth Props., Inc., Case No. 09-11977 (ALG), 2011 BL 189724 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011)
CASE SNAPSHOT