Perfect your liens on time or you may lose them. That’s the painful lesson U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Karen B. Owens taught Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. in her recent decision.

Ruling on plaintiff-debtor Southland Royalty Company LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment, Judge Owens found that Halliburton did not obtain a lien on Southland’s production of oil, natural gas, or their proceeds. In re Southland Royalty Co., LLC, 20-10158 (KBO) at 1 (Jan. 21, 2021, Bankr. D. Del.) (the “Opinion”).

We have blogged previously about section 546(e), the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain transfers otherwise subject to avoidance as preferences or fraudulent transfers. See 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). Among the transfers protected by the section 546(e) safe harbor are transfers by or to a “financial participant” made “in connection with a securities contract.” Id.

Every so often, we post an article on case law discussing proofs of claim. The decisions often contain basic but important information about the timing and manner of claim filing.

In sophisticated real estate financing transactions, most prudent lenders attempt to deter borrowers from filing for bankruptcy before loans are paid in full by providing in loan documents that such a filing constitutes an event of default. Many lenders will insist that their borrowers remain “bankruptcy remote” in the form of a so-called “single asset real estate” entity during the term of the loan.

Companies post-restructuring are not subject to the rules protecting creditors of insolvent companies in section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001.

The Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. These avoidance powers are subject to certain limitations, including a safe harbor in section 546(e) exempting certain transfers. Among other things, section 546(e) bars avoidance of a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . .

There remain a number of issues in the proposed insolvency reforms that need careful deliberation, particularly where the Regulations have yet to be released for consideration.

There are several ways in which property owners can advantageously use the Bankruptcy Code to effectuate strategic dispositions of assets. But the bankruptcy process can be fraught with uncertainty that can upend the best laid plans. The matter of In re Wansdown Properties Corp. N.V., No. 19-13223 (SMB), 2020 WL 5887542 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2020) provides an instructive and cautionary example.

The new debtor-in-possession model for small business restructuring is aimed at allowing viable small businesses to seize the initiative to quickly restructure to survive the economic impact of COVID-19, but we need greater clarity on key elements of the proposed insolvency framework.

Last February, we blogged about the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Energy Future Holdings Corp, No. 19-1430, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947 (Feb. 18, 2020). The Third Circuit approved a process for resolving asbestos claims in which a bar date was imposed on filing the claims, but late claimants who were unaware of their asbestos claims would be allowed to have the bar date excused through Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3). (A bar date is a date set by the court by which all claims against the debtor must be filed.