This is the first of several posts on gathering agreements in bankruptcy, covenants running with the land and rejection claims that arise when a debtor finds gathering agreements financially burdensome. As our readers know, we waited with much anticipation for theSabine ruling and wait with equal anticipation for the ruling on similar issues in QuickSilver.  Being pragmatic business lawyers we decided to blog on what parties to gathering agreements should be doing now in light of the non-binding, advisory Sabine ruling.

In recent weeks, a move dubbed the “Texas Two-Step” has leaped from coverage first in publications geared only for the professional restructuring community, then to the mainstream press, then to hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, and now to a full-blown trial ongoing in a New Jersey bankruptcy court.

Attorneys who advise a distressed company usually work very closely with members of the board of directors. A recent opinion from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas provides a cautionary reminder to such attorneys not to lose sight of the fact that, notwithstanding that the company acts through its board, the attorneys’ duties are to the company and not to the individual board members. And, losing focus on the source of the attorneys’ duties may result in exposure to significant liability.

This past November, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the majority of circuit courts when it held (i) that bankruptcy courts may apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to class proofs of claim and administrative proofs of claim, and (ii) that a putative representative may file a conditional claim on behalf of a putative class that may later be certified.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas in In re Waco Town Square Partners, L.P., et al. considered whether it had the authority to order a non-debtor to dismiss a state court lawsuit.

“[W]hat I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career…” – Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), Taken

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas touched on two popular bankruptcy topics: notice requirements and the effect of a bankruptcy discharge on claims.

Donald Rumsfeld might sum up a recent decision by Judge Isgur out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas as follows: “We also know there are known unknowns; that it to say we know there are some things we do not know.

A recent bankruptcy court decision denying a royalty owner's motion for summary judgment is highly relevant to any investor that currently owns a term royalty interest or is considering such an investment. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas found in NGP Capital Resources Co. v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp. (In re ATP Oil & Gas Corp.), No. 12-3443, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 33 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Jan.

As the seventh anniversary of the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code draws near, the volume of chapter 15 cases commenced in U.S. bankruptcy courts on behalf of foreign debtors has increased rapidly. During that period, there has also (understandably) been a marked uptick in litigation concerning various aspects of the comparatively new legislative regime governing cross-border bankruptcy cases patterned on the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. One such issue was the subject of a ruling recently handed down by a Texas district court. In In re Vitro, S.A.B. de C.V., 470 B.R.