On March 8, 2016, a New York Bankruptcy Court issued a bench decision in the Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation Chapter 11 case. The Court’s decision concerning a producer’s request to reject certain portions of its midstream agreements has sent shockwaves through the oil and gas industry. Although the decision is far more limited in scope than is being reported by many commentators and professionals, its impact may be far reaching.
On January 1, 2016, the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA) was enacted in Kentucky and can be found at KRS 378A.005 e seq. The UVTA replaces KRS 378, which contained KRS 378.010, the Kentucky fraudulent conveyance statute, and KRS 378.060, the Kentucky preference statute. Nationally, the UVTA will replace the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”). According to the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, California, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, and North Dakota have joined Kentucky in enacting the UVTA.
As part of a modernization project that was begun by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules in 2008, most of the Official Bankruptcy Forms will be replaced with substantially revised, renumbered and reformatted versions, effective December 1, 2015 (New Forms). The New Forms were approved by the Judicial Conference on September 17, 2015.
Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions, including financial institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks for creditors who take collateral, in security for the repayment of debt, containing PII data? What are the risks to businesses when they transfer assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?
Jackie Ford, partner in the Vorys Houston and Columbus offices, authored an article for Law360 onwhether traditional definitions of property and ownership include social media accounts. The full text of the article is included below.
WHO OWNS LIKES, POSTS, PAGES AND TWEETS IN BANKRUPTCY?
Much has been written of late about data breaches and the liabilities for the unauthorized acquisition of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from institutions. But what about when the alleged “breach”--the release of information --is voluntarily and/or legally compelled? What are the risks to businesses when they sell assets that include PII? What liabilities do they face? What are the rights of customers?
Radio Shack – The pioneer of PII data collection
An Analysis of Ohio’s Amended Receivership Law Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP January 2015 © Copyright 2015, Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP. All Rights Reserved. vorys.com Table of Contents Introduction..................................................................................1 Affected Statutes..........................................................................2 Grounds for Appointment............................................................2 Scope of Receiver’s Authority – “Property Receivers” vs.
On Monday, we released three new research indices tracking distress in U.S. financial markets.
The indices use Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing data to signal underlying financial distress which may not be reflected in broader stock market averages. The indices and the full quarterly report can be found at www.distressindex.com.
The “FBT/TrBK Distress Indices” comprise three different measurements based on Chapter 11 filings:
In a recent decision in a Delaware Chapter 11 case, the court took the unusual step of capping the amount of a secured lender’s loan that could be used in the lender’s credit bid in a Section 363 sale.
As electronic discovery has become more prevalent and voluminous, national standards for the preservation of evidence have evolved dramatically in the past decade. Through a proliferation of electronic discovery orders involving discovery compliance, courts have addressed when the duty to preserve evidence arises, signifying a party’s duty to issue a “litigation hold.” Courts have not answered, however, whether a party can withhold documents generated before issuing a litigation hold on the basis of work product protection.