Nine Point Energy Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Nine Point" or "Nine Point debtors") constituted an oil and gas production and exploration company that sought to reorganize in chapter 11 through a going concern sale of substantially all of their assets. To maximize value, Nine Point sought to sell those assets free and clear of its midstream services contracts, which included provisions that prevented Nine Point from acquiring midstream services from anyone other than its counterparty, Caliber North Dakota, LLC ("Caliber").
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy Rules") establish strict requirements for the assumption, assignment, and rejection of contracts and leases. The U.S.
On December 22, 2021, Judge Mary Walrath of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held in In re The Hertz Corp. that redemption premiums may potentially qualify as unmatured interest, and that, to the extent that such redemption premiums are unmatured interest on unsecured debt, then creditors would only be entitled to receive the federal judgment rate, not the contractual rate of interest.
Two recent decisions from Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware address common-interest and attorney work-product protection issues that arose in the bankruptcy case of In re Imerys Talc America, Inc., No. 19-10289 (Bankr. D. Del.).1 Those decisions delineate the interests (and concomitant privilege and work-product protections) of certain parties in Chapter 11 cases, and their reasoning provides instructive guidance on those often misunderstood issues outside of bankruptcy as well.
On July 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) affirmed the Delaware bankruptcy court’s order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the chapter 11 liquidation plan (the “Plan”) of Exide Holdings, Inc.
In the recent decision of Paragon Offshore, No. 16-10386 (CSS), 2021 (Bankr. D. Del. June 28, 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the court) addressed the issue of whether the Office of the United States Trustee (OUST) could collect its quarterly fees against assets that were previously transferred to a litigation trust (the litigation trust) free and clear of any and all claims, liens and other encumbrances pursuant to a confirmed plan of liquidation.
In SolarReserve CSP Holdings, LLC v. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC, C.A. No. 78, 2021 (Del. Aug. 9, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court recently dismissed a books-and-records appeal as moot and vacated a judgment issued by the Court of Chancery after appellee Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC (Tonopah) emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding as a new limited liability company operating under a new limited liability company agreement.
The Delaware Bankruptcy Court (“Bankruptcy Court”) recently issued a ruling that provides additional clarity regarding the treatment of “appraisal rights” in bankruptcy proceedings and the scope of section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. In In reRTI Holding Company, LLC, et al., (decided August 4, 2021) the Bankruptcy Court subordinated the general unsecured claims filed by holders of “appraisal rights” in respect of the debtors’ equity (the “Claimants”).
Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.
In a recent opinion from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the Dura Automotive Systems bankruptcy case,[1] Judge Karen Owens held that executory contracts cannot be impliedly assumed through course of conduct by the parties, under binding Third Circuit precedent, notwithstanding that a minority of courts outside of the Third Circuit have allowed it