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 Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania has placed Lincoln General Insurance Company into liquidation in Pennsylvania. As a result, the Insurance Commissioner as Liquidator takes over the property, business, and affairs of Lincoln General; collects assets; resolves claims; and ultimately, distributes assets to creditors, including policyholders and claimants.
In a September 18, 2015 order, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying administrative claim treatment to Hudson Energy Services, LLC (“Hudson”) for its retail sales of electricity to the debtor.1 The decision does not address any “safe-harbor” or forward contract issues, but is among a number of decisions providing for inconsistent treatment of such sales.
In a recent decision related to the SemCrude bankruptcy, the federal district court upheld the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings on the efficacy of certain common risk-mitigation tools used in the energy trading and marketing business – namely product payment netting and cross-product setup upon liquidation and closeout. The decision comes amid long-running challenges from producers who had sold product to the SemGroup entities on credit.
The case of Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd was heard in Singapore recently, with judgment handed down by the High Court on 9 June 2015.
Of significance to liquidators and underlining the importance of this case to the insolvency profession in Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Chua Lee Ming stated that “it is undeniable that litigation funding has an especially useful role to play in insolvency situations”.
Key Points This decision brings clarity to liquidators taking appointments in Singapore on a number of aspects.
On 7 November 2014, OW Bunker A/S (“OW”), a global supplier and trader of marine fuel, filed for bankruptcy in Denmark. Further bankruptcies of OW subsidiaries and affiliates swiftly followed, including the bankruptcy of certain U.S. and Singapore-based OW entities.
SwissMarine Corporation Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (in bankruptcy) [2015] EWHC 1571 (Comm)
The Commercial Court has recently refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to SwissMarine Corporation Limited (SwissMarine) to restrain proceedings brought by O.W. Supply & Trading A/S (OW) against SwissMarine in Denmark.
Re Pan Ocean Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 1500 (Ch)
The Applicants had entered into a pool agreement and time charter with Pan Ocean, both of which were governed by English law and provided for London arbitration. The agreements were terminated, and the Applicants sought damages. Pan Ocean went into rehabilitation in Korean, and the Applicants submitted claims which were rejected by the administrator. The Korean court confirmed that rejection. The Applicants lodged an objection to the court’s decision, and the proceedings were ongoing in Korea.
“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.