Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)
The U.S. Supreme Court held last week in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. that an insurance company with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” with the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.
Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:
Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.
The American bankruptcy process is geared towards providing (a) financially distressed businesses and individuals with a “fresh start” and (b) their creditors a fair opportunity to address their claims. Much of that process takes place in bankruptcy courts all over the country on a daily basis. So, what effect does a pandemic, such as the novel coronavirus (and its attendant disease, COVID-19), have on the administration of bankruptcy cases in the U.S.? Of course, the federal, state and local restrictions on public gatherings create a challenge for U.S.
In Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1] the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a troubling 2017 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bankruptcy of a debtor extinguishes the deemed trust for unremitted GST and HST created in favour of the Crown (“CRA”) by section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”).
Yes, Gathering Agreements Can Be Rejected as Executory Contracts (At Least Under One Court’s Interpretation of Texas Law)
Can Gathering Agreements Be Rejected as Executory Contracts?
In 2015, the energy sector accounted for more than one-half of all public company bankruptcy filings, including eight of the 10 largest filings. Current oil prices and bond values indicate that 2016 will be another active year. As of late January 2016, crude oil prices hovered around $30 per barrel. These low prices are reflected in the bond market, where in December 2015, approximately $80 billion in non-defaulted oil and gas debt was trading below 50 cents on the dollar.
众所周知,采矿业面临着艰难的局面。在最近几年的市场繁荣时期,矿业公司承担了空前庞大的债务。目前,随着商品价格的下降和再融资来源的枯竭,这些巨额的债务令许多公司步履维艰,严重威胁着它们的生存。
加拿大
若无法与债权人商定业务解决方案,公司应该考虑向债权人寻求破产法项下的保护。在加拿大拥有资产或在加拿大经营业务且债务金额在五百万以上的公司可获得联邦《公司债权人安排法》(简称,“CCAA”)项下的保护。
CCAA允许公司在重组公司事务时暂缓债权人追诉,同时根据某些条件维持对公司经营的控制。公司,特别是未达到五百万债务门槛的公司,还可以考虑联邦《破产法》项下的和解机制。在本文中,我们将讨论CCAA项下的程序。
CCAA项下程序的第一步是获得法院命令,该命令将暂缓债权人在三十日的初始期限内行使其权利,从而允许公司制定重组方案。在获得首个暂缓命令前,公司无需通知债权人,尽管在许多情况下,建议公司通知其债权人。
若公司能够证明其很有可能将提交重组方案,并且延期不会有损于债权人的整体利益,暂缓命令的期限还可以延长。下达暂缓命令时,法院还将任命独立第三方在命令生效期间,监控公司业务及财务事宜。监控人须向法院报告公司的业务行为,但并不管理或指导公司业务。