Until recently, In re Atari, Inc. was a closed case, but, in a recent decision, the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York found that “other cause” existed to reopen the bankruptcy cases. 

Background

It is estimated that roughly 300 upstream companies will file for bankruptcy in 2016, and many management teams are curious about hedging alternatives during the restructuring and bankruptcy process. There are various alternatives management teams can take with their hedging programs, ranging from full liquidation to actually increasing hedge coverage. The following discusses the purpose of an effective risk management program, what typically happens to hedges during the bankruptcy process, and the hedging alternatives for a distressed company.

Law360, New York (May 5, 2016, 12:02 PM ET) -- A core principle of bankruptcy tax litigation holds that “bankruptcy courts have universally recognized their jurisdiction to consider tax issues brought by the debtor, limited only by their discretion to abstain.” IRS v. Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 329-330 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hunt, 95 B.R. 442, 445 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1989). The Second Circuit recently departed from that generally accepted principle in United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2014).

In bankruptcy cases, things often move more slowly than people would like or expect.  In addition to dealing with oversight by the bankruptcy court and the United States Trustee, a debtor typically spends significant time engaging with its lenders and secured creditors, committees of unsecured creditors, and any number of other key stakeholders.  Court approval is needed for most significant events in the case, for anything out of the ordinary course of business, and, at times, even for small matters.  Transparency, adequate notice and opportunity to object, and due process a

For almost 50 years, Douglas Chrismas has helmed his Los Angeles-based Ace Gallery, helping to put struggling artists on the map, while also organizing shows for famed artists such as Andy Warhol. But on April 6, 2016, Mr. Chrismas lost the keys to his storied gallery, after failing to make a $17 million court-ordered payment to settle debts in his 2013 bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy trustee will now control the reorganized business’ finances, with Mr. Chrismas continuing to oversee the curatorial and sales duties in an effort to satisfy creditors.

What happens when the counterparties on both sides of a contract are debtors in separate bankruptcy cases and their estates have contrary views about whether to reject or assume a contract?

Nearly every day a different E&P company makes an announcement that indicates the company is facing financial distress, insolvency or bankruptcy.  Many of these companies are Operators under Joint Operating Agreements and with each announcement there are likely Non-Operators concerned about the impact these events will have on their non-operated working interests.  Non-Operators should understand their JOA rights and options when their Operator becomes distressed.

On May 1, 2016, BIND Therapeutics, Inc., and affiliated companies (“Debtors” or “BIND”) voluntarily filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The filing comes days after the Cambridge, Mass., company received a notice of default from lender Hercules Technology III LP, which demanded immediate payment of the $14.5 million the lender says it is owed under the loan. The Company is backed by Koch Industry Inc.’s David Koch.

Gary Ozenne seems to love bankruptcy court.  To wit, Mr. Ozenne filed, on his own behalf, seven bankruptcy cases over the course of five years.  Mr. Ozenne has three times petitioned the United States Supreme Court, on each occasion seeking bankruptcy-related relief.  Unfortunately for Mr.

It is spring and the stands will soon ring with the oft-heard refrain, the clarion call of players and fans alike, “Hey ump, read the rules!”  In Rosenberg v.