The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff’s decision that the gas gathering contracts that Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation entered into with two midstream service companies were personal obligations, and not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law, which, therefore, could be rejected under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Executive Summary

Companies in the health care industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

Companies in the healthcare industry face many unique challenges when undergoing a bankruptcy, including challenges arising due to the federal and state law framework governing the use and disclosure of medical information. In February 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it had reached a settlement with the receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of Filefax, Inc., a medical record storage and transportation company, resolving claims against Filefax for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

The Changwon District Court in South Korea has this afternoon (23 March 2018) issued a comprehensive prohibition order (CPO) following the application of Sungdong Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Co. Ltd (Sungdong) to enter Chapter 11 Rehabilitation filed earlier this month.

The effect of the CPO is to provisionally prohibit all creditors of the yard from taking legal action in South Korea to secure and enforce their claims by attachment, arrest or foreclosing of their security interests.

Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, ruled that the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, does not shield transferees from liability simply because a particular transaction was routed through a financial intermediary—so-called “conduit transactions.”

Context

As we described in our client alert dated September 14, 2016, in the aftermath of the real estate downturn from 1989 to 1993, when real estate mortgage lenders began to contemplate making new mortgage loans, they sought to create new legal structures to prevent their prospective borrowers from filing for Chapter 11, and to ameliorate the adverse consequences, if such a filing were to occur.