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.

No es concursal una acción que tiene por objeto una pretensión de indemnización de daños y perjuicios por responsabilidad delictual o cuasidelictual, que ejercita el síndico en el marco de un procedimiento de insolvencia y que, de prosperar, daría lugar a la reintegración de lo obtenido en la masa activa. La competencia para conocer de ella se determina por las disposiciones del Reglamento Bruselas I (RBI, aplicado al caso por razones temporales, si bien lo decidido por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea [TJUE] se extiende al actualmente aplicable RBIbis).

Es exclusiva la competencia de los tribunales del Estado miembro en cuyo territorio se ha abierto un procedimiento de insolvencia para conocer de una acción revocatoria por insolvencia ejercitada contra un demandado cuyo domicilio se encuentra en otro Estado miembro.

Las normas del Derecho rector de la filial en materia de grupos resultan, en principio, aplicables a la matriz aunque esta sea extranjera. No cabe descartar que, además, el Derecho rector de la matriz se aplique para imponer una responsabilidad por las instrucciones que perjudicaron a la filial, aunque el Derecho de ésta no contemple normas especiales al respecto.

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?