On March 11, 2016, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in the Energy Future Holdings bankruptcy that resolved an intercreditor dispute over $90 million in proceeds to be distributed under the plan of reorganization.

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

CAYMAN ISLANDS

The release provisions in a corporate debtor’s Chapter 11 plan were “not sufficiently specific to release” a plaintiff’s Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) claim against the debtor’s president (“P”), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Jan. 6, 2016. Hernandez v. Larry Miller Roofing, Inc., 2016 WL 67217, at *4 (5th Cir. Jan. 6, 2016).

“A creditor does not become an insider simply by receiving a claim from a statutory insider,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 8, 2016. In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 2016 WL 494592, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2016) (2-1). According to the court, “Insiders are either statutory [per se] [e.g., officers, directors] or non-statutory [de facto].” Id.

In times of financial turbulence, politicians, regulators and the media make the case for tighter controls of the markets.  However, with new regulatory powers coming in and the resulting extra layer of complexity that their application brings, investors have their reasons not to put their trust in regulators.  As seen with recent developments in Portugal and Italy, a number of competing motivations surround the rescue of financial institutions.  The old maxim – “Put your trust in God, but keep your powder dry” -  may be applied to describe investor sentiment in an envir

A Chapter 11 debtor’s impairment in its reorganization plan of two unsecured claims filed by its former lawyer and accountant “was transparently an artifice to circumvent the purposes of” the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Jan. 27, 2016. In re Village Green I G.P., 2016 WL 325163, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016).

A federal “secured tax claim takes priority over [a professional’s] claim to fees” in an aborted Chapter 11 case, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Jan. 26, 2016. In re Anderson, 2016 WL 308590, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2016).

A “bank [making a secured rescue loan] had information that should have created the requisite suspicion … to conduct a diligent search for possible dirt” — i.e., whether the debtor had the right to pledge $312 million of customer securities, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Jan. 8, 2016.In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc., 2016 WL 98601, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 8, 2016) [“Sentinel V”]. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, voided the defendant bank’s lien as a fraudulent transfer, and rejected the bank’s good faith defense.

A secured lender had to “pay the [encumbered] Property’s maintenance expenses incurred while the [bankruptcy] trustee was trying to sell the Property,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Dec. 29, 2015. In re Domistyle, Inc., 2015 WL 9487732, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 29, 2015).