Yesterday, Energy XXI Ltd. became the latest domestic oil and gas company to pursue a more deleveraged balance sheet via Chapter 11 restructuring. This does not come as a surprise to those following the company – for much of the last three months Energy XXI’s stock has been trading at less than $1.00 per share. According to the press release issued by the company, the filing comes after the company reached agreement with more than 63% of second lien note holders on the material terms of the restructuring.
On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it. The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re Tribune Co.
Australia is making several significant reforms to its insolvency legislation – with more changes likely to come – to provide much-needed comfort for directors and to align legislation on ipso facto clauses in order to prevent contractual terminations simply as a result of the commencement of an insolvency proceeding. (See the Productivity Commission Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure (available here)).
We previously posted about a recent effort to address an issue left unresolved in Baker Botts v. ASARCO, 135 S. Ct.
Baker Botts L.L.P. has filed its application for retention as debtors’ counsel in In re New Gulf Resources, LLC, et al. (Case No. 15-12556, Bankr. D. Del.), and the application incudes a novel “Fee Premium.” Essentially, Baker Botts’ aggregate fees incurred in the case will be increased by 10% (subject to court approval) but … Baker Botts will waive the entire Fee Premium “if, and only if, Baker Botts does not incur material fees and expenses defending against any objection with respect to an interim or final fee application.”
More than three dozen US energy industry companies (E&Ps) filed for chapter 11 this year, with three more – New Gulf Resources LLC, Magnum Hunter Resources Corp., and Cubic Energy Inc. – filing just this third week of December. According to BloombergBriefs.com, even before these most recent filings. energy sector filings accounted for 26% of all chapter 11 filings in 2015, which is the largest share of filings for any sector. Just when the industry thought oil prices could not go any lower, they have.
The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. [1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.
Background
“Stop in the name of love, before you break my heart”
That’s what bankruptcy lawyers are now proclaiming in the wake of Baker Botts v. Asarco, in which the Supreme Court held that the debtor’s law firm could not be paid its “fees on fees” in defending against an objection to their fees. Two disclaimers. First, our firm represented the winning party in Baker Botts, Second, I am a bankruptcy lawyer and I would like to be paid all of my fees, including fees on fees. But it ain’t right or, at least, it ain’t what Congress authorized in Bankruptcy Code § 330.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.