In a decision entered yesterday afternoon, Judge Shelley Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation to reject certain midstream contracts under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and, critically, made a non-binding holding that Sabine’s obligations under these contracts were not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law.

In Venture Bank v. Lapides, 800 F.3d 442 (8th Cir. 2015), the Eighth Circuit found that a bank could not recover from its borrower and, in fact, had violated the post-discharge injunction by relying on change in terms agreements which were ineffective to reaffirm a debt discharged in the borrower’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Many creditors (including lenders) have learned the difficult lesson that payments received from a debtor within the 90-day period preceding a bankruptcy filing may be subject to refund as a preferential transfer. Many creditors also know that one of the defenses to a preferential transfer claim is what is referred to as an "ordinary course of business" defense, which excludes payments that are made within the ordinary course of dealing with the creditor and that are consistent with the ordinary practice in the industry.

The Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule specifying its procedures for emergency lendingunder Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act.  Since the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010, the Board’s authority to engage in emergency lending has been limited to programs and facilities with “broad-based eligibility” that have been established with the approval

In Jubber v. SMC Electrical Products, Inc. et al. (In re C.W. Mining Co.), Case No. 13-4175 (Aug. 10, 2015), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that a single payment made by a debtor within the 90-day preference period to a seller, with whom the debtor had never done business, may satisfy the elements to be a payment in the “ordinary course” and, thus, not subject to a preference claim by the trustee.

This past summer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that "deepening insolvency" is not a recognized theory of damages in Minnesota. Christians v. Thornton, 733 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. App. 2007). In September, the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied a petition to review, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 572 (Minn. Sept. 18, 2007), leaving in place a decision that is an enormous relief to officers and directors of troubled companies, to banks that have lent to troubled companies, and to professionals such as lawyers, accountants and investment brokers who have provided services to troubled companies.

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) changed the legal landscape of bankruptcy asset sales. Prior to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer, 391 B.R. 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008), courts routinely stripped liens from assets purchased in a bankruptcy sale. Moreover, appeals of these sales were generally considered non-reviewable. The BAP in Clear Channel overturned these two longstanding features of bankruptcy asset sales, and, if followed, this decision could result in enforcement of existing property liens against asset purchasers.

vWe are on pace to see a record number of business bankruptcies in 2009, with a notable amount of activity in the retail, manufacturing and automotive sectors. In light of the impact of today's bankruptcies on vendors of goods, it is worthwhile to revisit one of the protections afforded to trade creditors under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

By some accounts, there is over $300 billion of commercial real estate debt set to mature over each of the next four years. As a result of a lack of demand, a lack of liquidity and lackluster valuations, a significant portion of this debt will go into default. In many cases, bankruptcies will ensue for both the projects and their owners.

The limited liability company is widely used as the business entity of choice for a number of reasons, including its asset protection benefits. If a creditor of an LLC member attempts to seize the LLC member's interest (or the assets of the LLC for that matter), the creditor will have to deal with the charging order roadblock.