The Bankruptcy Code’s Section 547(b) allows a trustee or debtor in possession to recover property transferred to a creditor, known as a preference action. However, the Code also provides defenses to a preference action, including the ordinary course of business defense.

A Section 363 sale is a sale of a company's assets pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court will approve a 363 sale if the debtor can demonstrate a "substantial business justification" for the sale.

Key Issues

In general, Section 363 bankruptcy sales proceed as follows:

This article, part of our Creditor’s Rights Toolkit [link] series, serves as an essential guide for vendors navigating the complex landscape of dealing with financially distressed or bankrupt customers. It provides a detailed exploration of the options available to vendors who are proactive and quick to act when they learn of their customer’s financial woes.

Successor liability is a catchall term for a group of legal theories that, in certain circumstances, allow a creditor to recover amounts owed by its obligor from a person or entity who succeeds to the assets or business of that obligor. Typically, claimants cannot pursue successor liability against a purchaser in a bankruptcy sale because most sales are made "free and clear" of such claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, there are some limited exceptions to this general rule.

On October 28, 2020, FERC declined to abrogate or modify firm natural gas transportation service agreements (“Gulfport TSAs”) between Gulfport Energy Corporation (“Gulfport”) and Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (“Rockies Express”) in response to a Rockies Express petition anticipating a potential Gulfport bankruptcy filing. After an expedited paper hearing, FERC concluded that the public interest does not presently require any modification, and thus, that the Gulfport TSAs on file remain just and reasonable.

On June 22, 2020, FERC issued a declaratory order confirming its view that it shares jurisdiction with the United States Bankruptcy Court (“Bankruptcy Court”) over transportation agreements between ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC (“ETC Tiger”) and Chesapeake Energy Marketing L.L.C. (“Chesapeake”). As a result, aside from obtaining approval from the Bankruptcy Court to reject its contracts with ETC Tiger, Chesapeake must seek a determination from FERC as to whether a filed rate may be modified or abrogated under the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”).

On May 1, 2019, FERC denied Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“PG&E”) requests for rehearing of two prior orders in which FERC held that it and the bankruptcy courts have concurrent jurisdiction to review and address the disposition of wholesale power contracts sought to be rejected through bankruptcy. FERC’s order comes as the PG&E bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California (“Bankruptcy Court”) remain ongoing.

On March 11, 2019, a U.S. district court judge in California denied FERC’s motion to withdraw the reference of Pacific Gas and Electric’s (“PG&E”) adversary proceeding from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the ongoing jurisdictional dispute between FERC and the bankruptcy court. In his ruling, Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the U.S.

The issue of whether gathering agreements are subject to rejection in bankruptcy as executory contracts and whether certain provisions of those agreements run with the land and survive rejection will impact ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of producers, as well as renegotiations of existing gathering agreements.