Beginning on February 13, 2021, something unprecedented happened in the state of Texas—a winter storm caused temperatures to dip well-below freezing. This event, dubbed the “Black Swan Winter Event,” caused Texas to experience a catastrophic energy crisis. As demand for energy soared, supply plummeted as power plants tripped offline and natural gas supply lines froze. The storm raged on, and on February 16, the Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUCT”), which oversees the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc.

Sounds like an odd combination—enforceability of make-whole and post-petition interest and patent law. It is. But relevant nonetheless. Recall that a key argument in the ongoing Ultra Petroleum dispute regarding the noteholders’ entitlement to make-whole and post-petition interest is the existence of the Solvent Debtor Rule. The Solvent Debtor Rule is a judicially created exception to the prohibition on claims for post-petition interest by unsecured creditors in bankruptcy.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background

The application of sovereign immunity principles in bankruptcy cases has vexed the courts for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions on the matter have not helped much. Although they have addressed the issue in specific contexts, they have not established clear guidelines that the lower courts may apply more generally. The Third Circuit took a crack at clarifying this muddy but important area of the law in the case of Venoco LLC (with its affiliated debtors, the “Debtors”).

Background

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas recently clarified the administrative expense standard applicable to indenture trustees by holding that they can recover fees and expenses as administrative expenses only when they make a “substantial contribution.” This standard requires a greater showing than “benefit to the estate,” which is the general administrative expense standard. In re Sanchez Energy Corp., No. 19-34508 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. May 3, 2021).

Background

Welcome to the first Akin Gump client alert sub-titled Make (Whole) a Minute. These alerts are designed to be short digestible updates or commentaries on topics of interest to the institutional investment community that take a minute (or two) to read. And who doesn’t love Make-Whole and a good play on words?

Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.

Background

In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.

Shari’a Compliant Transactions

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).

Background