Recent technological innovations and advancements in drilling and completion techniques have led to an unprecedented expansion of natural gas production by large and midsize exploration and production companies. This expansion created competition for wild cat acreage as well as producing properties, putting lessors and co-owners (the “non-operators”) at a distinct advantage in negotiating the terms of leases, farmout agreements and joint operating agreements (“JOAs”).

In what it described as “an easy decision,” the U.S. Supreme Court issued its eagerly anticipated decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank¹ on May 29, 2012.

Buying natural gas assets from financially distressed companies is an inherently risky proposition.  Even when an attractive prospect is identified, the purchaser has to overcome a number of issues such as clearing up title, including mechanic and materialman liens and getting assignments of contracts and lessor consents.  Assuming these hurdles can be managed, the purchaser is also faced with legacy liability problems ranging from plugging and abandonment and decommissioning costs, unknown claims from interest owners under joint operating agreements, general claims from oil field

Technological innovation has changed the landscape of domestic natural gas production from shortage to surplus. The result: a glut of natural gas and historically low prices. While many producers have successfully hedged against this risk to date, as older hedges roll off, many companies are unable to obtain replacement hedges at attractive prices. Some have even resorted to monetizing their in-the-money hedges to raise capital today (and borrowing against the future).

The Issue

The issue is whether a Chapter 11 plan can be crammed down over the secured lender’s objection where the plan provides for the sale or transfer of the secured lender’s collateral with the proceeds going to the secured lender without the secured lender having the right to credit bid for is collateral up to the full amount of its claim.  

(Originally published on September 29, 2011)

The Act of May 20 2011 implements EU Directive 2009/44/EC (amending the EU Settlement Finality Directive and the EU Collateral Directive), and amends the Collateral Act of August 5 2005. The Collateral Act has always been a lender-friendly implementation of the Collateral Directive. Most of its provisions have not changed and in general, the Collateral Act remains favourable to creditors in insolvency situations and other contexts.

Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements

Can a U.S. patent licensee whose license has been rejected by a licensor under foreign law in a foreign bankruptcy rely on the protections of § 365(n) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion addressing this in the Chapter 15 case of Qimonda AG (“Qimonda”).⁵ The bankruptcy court held that the application of § 365(n) to executory licenses to U.S. patents was required to sufficiently protect the interests of U.S.

Introduction
Director's liability under Section 2:11 in conjunction with Section 2:248
Comment

Introduction

Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Insolvency aspects of collateral arrangements
Beneficiary of collateral
Remedy for potential conflict with depository
Rights attached to the collateral

Constitution and perfection of collateral arrangements
Insolvency aspects of collateral arrangements
Beneficiary of collateral
Remedy for potential conflict with depository
Rights attached to the collateral