Key points
Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.
At-a-glance cases provided by Gatehouse Chambers’ Insolvency Team, featuring:
Introduction
In this case the Court applied traditional constructive trust principles to disputed facts in order to determine whether a specific property came within the estate of a bankrupt. It will be of interest to practitioners advising in the area of challenged transfers in the context of insolvency.
The Trustees in the bankruptcy of Shaun Collins made an application pursuant to s.339 Insolvency Act 1986, to challenge a disposition of land. The land in question was a flat and the disposition was a 2021 transfer of a flat in London.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)
Dispute Resolution analysis: In a judgment which brings to a conclusion the trial of the former BHS directors, the Court has held the directors joint and severally liable for the increase in net deficiency of the company arising out of breaches of duty which caused the company to continue trading.
Wright and others v Chappell and others; Re BHS Group Limited [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.
Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.