On January 17, 2019, the U.S.
On December 22, 2018, the federal funding for certain agencies lapsed, and the United States government entered into a partial shutdown. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including the United States Trustee Program (USTP), was one of the agencies that shut down. United States Trustees (“UST”) representing the USTP appear and litigate in a multitude of bankruptcy proceedings. USTs also actively participate in out-of-court settlement discussions, plan negotiations, and the like.
On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Court”) affirmed a district court’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. that permitted a debtor to reject a midstream gathering agreement as an “executory contract.”1 The Court’s decision, which is the first Court of Appeals to address the rejection of a midstream gathering agreement, firmly establishes a debtor’s right to do so under certain circumstances.
BACKGROUND
The ATP Oil & Gas Corporation bankruptcy case (Case No. 4:12-bk-36187, S.D. Texas) (“ATP”) involved the intersection of energy and bankruptcy law on a variety of issues. Most recently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision arising from that case dealing with the relative rights or priorities between the holder of overriding royalty interests (“ORRI”) and parties asserting lien claims or privileges under the Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act (“LOWLA”) (La. Rev. Stat § 9:4861) in a case titled OHA Investment Corporation f/k/a NGP Capital Resources Company v.
As the effective date for the CFPB’s successor in interest and bankruptcy billing statement requirements quickly approaches, one question we’ve heard multiple times is whether a mortgage servicer is required to know when a confirmed successor in interest is in bankruptcy. The question stems from upcoming provisions in Regulations X and Z that will collectively say, in essence, that a confirmed successor in interest must be treated as if he or she is a borrower for the purposes of the mortgage servicing rules.
Law360
Even if you haven’t purchased any bitcoin, you have likely heard about the cryptocurrency that was approaching $20,000 per coin late last year. The record high was quickly followed by a dramatic fall in value over 16 days in early 2018 — crashing to below $7,000. Since that time, bitcoin has been staging its recovery, and as of this writing, sits at slightly over $9,000 per coin. Not a bad place to be, considering bitcoin’s humble valuation of $.08 per coin back in 2010. It seems that despite its roller coaster persona, bitcoin is here to stay.
Municipal bankruptcies under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 901-946 (Chapter 9), are rare. These cases are often filed to adjust bonded indebtedness and pension obligations. Congressional authorization for Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities to file for bankruptcy under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) was similarly out of concern for excessive bond debt and pensions.
One overarching certainty of federal debt collection law seems to be prolonged uncertainty over its appropriate scope. Is this scope about to change yet again? One recent bill called the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1849, seeks to do just that.
On October 4, 2017, the CFPB released an interim final rule and a proposed rule to amend certain provisions of its 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.
It is hard to peruse the internet or even mainstream media outlets without hearing about bitcoin. What is this ubiquitous bitcoin? It depends on whom you ask.
A CNN Money articled defined bitcoin as “a new currency that was created in 2009 by an unknown person using the alias Satoshi Nakamoto.” The IRS has recently defined bitcoin as an “intangible asset” for investors, making it subject to capital gains and loss treatment using the realization method.