Hot on the heels of the landmark changes to the insolvency landscape brought by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) (see our previous article on CIGA), the Government recently announced reforms relating to pre-packaged administration sales to connected parties.

We recently reported on Delaware Judge Christopher Sontchi’s decision in the Extraction bankruptcy to permit the rejection of midstream gathering agreements.¹ Fellow Delaware Judge Karen Owens followed Extraction in the Southland Royalty decision issued November 13, 2020.² Judge Owens determined that Southland Royalty Company, LLC (“Southland”), an E&P operator with assets primarily in Wyoming, could reject the gas gathering agreement and sell its assets free and clear of the agreement.

Summary of decisions In re Body Transit, Inc., No. BR 2010014 ELF, 2020 WL 1486784 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2020).

Straffi v Aeris Bank (In re Hillesland), No. 1925278( CMG), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2235 (Bankr. D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2020).

Case Snapshot The Bankruptcy Court held that a chapter 7 trustee could avoid judgment creditor’s lien pursuant to his “strongarm” powers under section 544(a) of the bankruptcy code because the judgment creditor did not make a good faith effort to locate debtor’s personal property before it levied against real property, as required under applicable New Jersey law.

In re Tribune Company, et al. No. 182909  (3d Cir. filed Aug. 26, 2020).

Case Snapshot

In re Affordable Auto Repair, Inc., No. 6:19bk18367MW, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2366 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020).

Case Snapshot

2020 has seen a significant increase in chapter 11 filings by oil and gas producers. Critical to the operations of these companies, and to the transportation and processing of the producer’s gas, are gathering agreements entered into between the producers and midstream companies. A pivotal question posed at the start of these chapter 11 proceedings is whether the gathering agreements are executory contracts subject to rejection or whether they create real property interests that cannot be rejected in chapter 11 proceedings. The answer depends on who you ask.

引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。

一、“维好协议”的性质分析

（一）何谓“维好协议”

Background

In the latest saga concerning “covenants running with the land” and the rejection of midstream gathering agreements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code), the Honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court (the Court), issued three¹ decisions holding that certain of Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc.’s (Extraction) gathering agreements with its midstream service providers did not create real property interests and, thus, that Extraction could reject such gathering agreements in its chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.