Reprinted with permission from the March 18, 2011 issue of The Legal Intelligencer © 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Over the last couple of years, the predominant goal in many business bankruptcy proceedings has been the sale of substantially all of the estate's assets. Such bankruptcy sales are often favored by buyers under Section 363(f), which enables a "free and clear" transfer of the assets.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that potentially broadens the proximate cause element of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). RICO’s proximate cause element requires a plaintiff to allege facts plausibly establishing that there is a “direct relationship” between the claimed injury and the defendant’s conduct in violation of RICO.

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.

Pinellas County Property Appraiser v. Read (In re Read), 692 F3d 1185 (11th Cir. 2012) –

Under Section 505(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, generally a bankruptcy court may determine the amount or legality of any tax. However, under Section 505(a)(2)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code ad valorem real or personal property taxes cannot be contested if the applicable time period under non-bankruptcy law has expired.

In a long-awaited decision released on February 22, 2011, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of Barclays Capital in Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.’s multi-billion-dollar lawsuit arising out of the sale of Lehman’s investment banking and brokerage assets, which occurred in September of 2008.

In In re KarcreditLLC [1], the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana was faced with two lenders with claims to one original stock certificate as collateral.

In re Betchan, 524 B.R. 830 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2015) –

A mortgagee was the highest bidder at a foreclosure sale that took place shortly before the debtor filed bankruptcy.  The lender requested relief from the automatic stay in order to evict the debtor on the basis that transfer of the property was completed prepetition so that it was not part of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

In re 1701 Commerce, LLC, 477 B.R. 652 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012) –

The capital stack for Presidio Hotel Fort Worth, L.P. consisted of (1) a senior loan of $39.6 million from Dougherty Funding, LLC, (2) a junior loan from Vestin Originations, Inc. and (3) a 20-year tax agreement with the City of Fort Worth pursuant to which the City made annual grant payments.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued rulings regarding the availability of tax losses after a bankruptcy,1 the ability to take a loss under Sections 165(a) and 165(g),2 and the characterization of a loss after an ownership change.3 There are few rulings or other sources of authority for these types of issues, and thus, a review of these rulings provides insight into the IRS’s current thinking on the issues addressed.

PLR 201051020

On March 19, in a matter of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Court) held that triangular setoff is not permissible in bankruptcy due to Bankruptcy Code Section 553(a)’s mutuality requirement, and that parties cannot evade that requirement by contracting around it. See In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 990 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 2021).