The laws of preferential and fraudulent transfers under the Bankruptcy Code can often seem theoretical and formulaic. When certain boxes are checked, it appears, at first blush, that a pre-bankruptcy transfer can be avoided, regardless of any intent or surrounding circumstances.

Creditors and debt collectors are often held to high standards when it comes to consumer protection laws. On December 17, however, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Memorandum Opinion in In re: Charles V. Cook, Sr., No. 1:14-bk-36424, evincing that debtors’ counsel can be subject to similarly high standards when appropriate.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to stay in control of their businesses in chapter 11. But the Code also empowers bankruptcy judges to replace a debtor’s management in certain circumstances with an outside trustee. This will happen if either cause exists to expel management or appointing a trustee is in the best interests of creditors, any equity holders, and other interests of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1007. Judges don’t need to hold an evidentiary hearing to appoint a trustee, but the decision to do so must be based on clear and convincing evidence.

Introduction

Developers and other sellers of electricity have traditionally viewed utilities as creditworthy counterparties. Utilities are longstanding institutions that provide a public service and receive a regulated rate of return.

Climate change, and the resulting legal and regulatory responses, however, are beginning to change the core business model of utilities. These changes have the potential to affect the structure of the wholesale electricity market and drastically impact sellers, particularly renewable generation developers.

On December 17, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved a settlement between Starion Energy Inc. and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in which Starion agreed to pay up to $10 million to resolve claims that it engaged in deceptive business practices and violated state telemarketing laws.

Starion is a retail provider of electricity and natural gas that offers service to residential and commercial customers in states where energy deregulation permits customers to choose their supplier.

Before ingesting too much holiday cheer, we encourage you to consider a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Weil Bankruptcy Blog connoisseurs will recall that, in May 2019, we wrote on the Southern District of New York’s decision in In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation, Case No. 12-2652, 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. April 23, 2019) (Cote, J.) (“Tribune I”).

In a recent decision, a bankruptcy court in Georgia enforced the arbitration agreement contained in a South Carolina consumer loan, holding that it is valid and enforceable, and that enforcement of it did not create an inherent conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. 

On December 20, 2019, the honorable Marvin Isgur, judge of the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court, issued an opinion holding that Alta Mesa Holdings (“Alta Mesa”), an upstream oil and gas producer with operations based in the STACK formation, could not, under Oklahoma law, reject certain gathering agreements in its bankruptcy case.1 The holding in Alta Mesa follows a similar outcome issued less than three months earlier in In re Badlands Energy, Inc.,2 a case decided by a Colorado bankruptcy court applying Utah law.

Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.