Fulltext Search

At its heart, Episode 24 was about relationships – from the wayward dating lives of Richard and Dinesh to Big Head and Ehrlich’s marriage of “Bachmanity,” the Pied Piper entourage found themselves faced with the messy unraveling of unsuccessful relationships.

The issue of whether gathering agreements are subject to rejection in bankruptcy as executory contracts and whether certain provisions of those agreements run with the land and survive rejection will impact ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of producers, as well as renegotiations of existing gathering agreements.

The doctrine of equitable mootness provides that Chapter 11 reorganization plans will be deemed moot, and therefore not subject to appellate review, if a plan has been substantially consummated and granting appellate relief would impair the rights of innocent third parties relying on the confirmation order.

Both landlords and tenants are well served to begin discussing exclusives early in the lease negotiations.

In re RML Dev., Inc., 528 B.R. 150 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2014) –

A mortgagee sought to modify a sale order to (1) modify the bid procedures and (2) confirm that it had a right to credit bid.

In re Walker, 526 B.R. 187 (E.D. La. 2015) –

The bankruptcy court (1) denied a mortgage lender’s request to file a late amendment to a proof of claim that had been filed on its behalf by the debtor and (2) confirmed the debtor’s proposed plan over the mortgagee’s objection that the plan payments were not sufficient to cure the actual arrearage. The lender appealed to the district court.

Lawrence v. Commonwealth of Ky. Transportation Cabinet (In re Shelbyville Road Shoppes, LLC), 775 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2015) –

A chapter 7 trustee sought return of a “good faith” deposit made prior to bankruptcy in connection with a proposed purchase of real estate.  The bankruptcy court found against the trustee, as did the district court.  So the trustee appealed to the 6th Circuit.

BOKF, N.A. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re MPM Silicones, LLC), 518 B.R. 740 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2014) –

Senior lienholders sued lenders holding junior liens on common collateral, arguing that the junior lienholders violated an intercreditor agreement.  The bankruptcy court addressed the issues in the context of motions to dismiss the senior lienholder complaints.