It is common for E&P companies in chapter 11 to seek to reject burdensome midstream contracts under Bankruptcy Code § 365. Rejection has not been permitted by bankruptcy courts where such agreements create enforceable covenants running with the land (“CRWL”) because a CRWL is a real property interest of the midstream gatherer, not just a contract right. Accordingly, before a debtor can seek to reject midstream agreements, the bankruptcy court must first determine whether an enforceable CRWL exists.
On August 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey’s order confirming the Tribune Company’s chapter 11 plan.1 As a matter of first impression, the Court held that the prohibition against “unfair discrimination” in cramdown plans supplants the requirement that subordination agreements be enforced in bankruptcy. The decision comes more than eight years after Judge Carey initially entered the Bankruptcy Court order, and follows years of appeals by the senior noteholders.
The COVID-19 pandemic has heavily disrupted our lives, communities, and businesses. Even with new approaches, not all businesses can overcome the substantial challenges brought by the pandemic. Lending programs like the Paycheck Protection Program have brought temporary relief, but many small businesses remain exposed to financial difficulties and face a real risk of bankruptcy.
New Small Business Provisions in Bankruptcy Code
A recent bench ruling in In re Pace Industries, LLC1 by Judge Walrath for the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) has validated a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by certain debtors in the jointly administered cases of Pace Industries, LLC and certain of its affiliates, in spite of the fact that they were filed in contravention of an explicit bankruptcy-filing blocking right held by certain equity holders as set forth in the applicable corporate governance documents.
The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.
Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.
What is set off?
Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.
The question regarding whether a trademark licensee may continue to use a license after a debtor-licensor rejects the license in its bankruptcy case has now been answered. On Monday, May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court handed down an 8-1 opinion in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.
On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion holding that a creditor whose rights have been affected by operation of the Bankruptcy Code may nevertheless be “unimpaired” under a chapter 11 plan of reorganization.
In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security