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).

Introduction
Facts
Decision


Introduction

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.  

In my recent blog posting, I discussed the factors that courts will consider before setting aside an elected condominium board of directors to impose a court-appointed administrator.

Below are some examples where the courts have intervened and appointed an administrator. They include situations where:

On December 1 2011 the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Indalex Limited (Re) (2011 ONCA 265).(1)

Indalex Limited and its US parent sought protection from their creditors under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act and under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. The court authorised a loan under a debtor-in-possession credit agreement and gave the lenders a super-priority charge against Indalex's assets.

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.

On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited, 2011 ONCA 265, which we summarized here.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal yesterday in Indalex Limited (Re). This is an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal (2011 ONCA 265). Please see our Financial Services and Banking E-news Bulletin dated April 25, 2011, for a detailed summary of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.