Today’s blog article, which looks at the treatment of specific oil and gas property interests in the bankruptcy context, is the second in the Weil Bankruptcy Blog series, “Drilling Down,” where we review issues at the intersection of the oil and gas industry and bankruptcy law.

Although likely not the intent of In re Siag Aerisyn, LLC, a recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Southern Division, some might argue that the opinion serves as a how-to guide for masking a capital contribution by an affiliate as a loan constituting bona fide debt.

There has been quite a lot of discussion over the past few months about the bench rulings issued by Judge Drain of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York inMomentive Performance Materials (see our extensive coverage in four parts here, 

Generally, the priority scheme in section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code dictates the order in which a creditor is paid.

On August 26, 2014, Judge Drain, of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, concluded the confirmation hearing in Momentive Performance Materials and issued several bench rulings on cramdown interest rates, the availability of a make-whole premium, third party releases, and the extent of the subordination of senior subordinated noteholders. This four-part Bankruptcy Blog series will examine Judge Drain’s rulings in detail, with Part I of this series providing you with a primer on cramdown in the secured creditor context.

August is that hot, humid time of the year when many professionals in the concrete jungles across this country decide to quietly slip away to more scenic locales (if you don’t believe us, try calling up your stockbroker right now… go ahead, we’ll wait).  Unfortunately, fellow bankruptcy practitioner, the law waits for no one.

When a bank holding company files a chapter 11 case, a key factor to the success of the case will be whether the debtor previously made any commitment to a federal depository institution regulatory agency, such as the FDIC, to maintain the capital of the debtor’s bank subsidiary.  This is because section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the debtor is deemed to have assumed such obligations, and any claim for subsequent breach of these obligations is entitled to priority under section 507(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.  The FDIC often demands

In Part II of this three-part entry, we mentioned that the District Court for

The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.

In a decision with broad and significant implications for many investors, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that claims arising under a guarantee of a security issued by an affiliate can be subject to mandatory subordination pursuant to section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.  While the decision may come as a surprise to some invest