A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.

We are often asked what to do if you have an operating agreement and your operator or one of the other working interest owners files for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to assume or reject the JOA (it is usually an executory contract).

On November 13, 2015, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued Financial Institution Letter 51-2015 (FIL-51-2015), FDIC Seeking Comment on Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Identifying, Accepting and Reporting Brokered Deposits. FIL-51-2015 seeks comments on the proposed updates to the existing FAQ document on brokered deposits, which was initially released in January of 2015 in FIL-2-2015, after additional comments and questions have been received by the FDIC since the initial issuance.

Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is permitted to sell substantially all of its assets outside of a plan of reorganization. Over the past two decades, courts have increasingly liberalized the standards under which 363 sales are approved. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,

On September 18, 2015, Margaret M. Okamoto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in The United States District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”), against, inter alia, Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Mutual of Omaha Bank (“MOB”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).  See Okamoto v. Bank of America et al., No. 2:15-cv-01800-GMN-GWF (Sept. 18, 2015).

In the bankruptcy context, effectively appealing an order confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization is not always a sure bet, as a court may refuse to entertain the appeal in the name of equitable mootness.  Equitable mootness – “a judge-made abstention doctrine that allows a court to avoid hearing the merits of a bankruptcy appeal because implementing the requested relief would cause havoc”

The Fifth Circuit recently dealt with the interplay of bankruptcy and oil and gas liens in the case of In Re: T.S.C. Seiber Services, L.C., decided November 3, 2014.

The Supreme Court has recently declined to hear retailer Game’s appeal, ruling that there was no arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered, particularly bearing in mind the case had already been the subject of judicial decision and reviewed on appeal.

“… permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court…”

On 27 June 2014, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales sanctioned the solvent scheme of arrangement made by J.K. Buckenham Limited and its Scheme Creditors pursuant to Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 which was voted on and approved by the Scheme Creditors during the meeting held on 4 June 2014. A copy of the Order sanctioning the Scheme was delivered to the Registrar of Companies on 30 June 2014, and the Scheme became effective on that date.

Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took a new, creative tack in a long struggle with importers regarding application of the “deemed liquidation” statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1504, to entries subject to antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). Importers need to be aware that CBP is now taking the dubious position that it is entitled to “reliquidate” a “deemed liquidated” entry at any time, so long as it gives notice to the importer of the “deemed liquidation” and then reliquidates the entry within 90 days after the date of the notice.