TerraForm Power Settles Derivative Lawsuit by Increasing Independence 
 

Sabine Bankruptcy Judge Authorizes Rejection of Gas Gathering Agreements

In In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., 2016 BL 70494 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016), Judge Shelley C. Chapman of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation (“Sabine”) to reject three gas gathering and handling agreements with Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC (“Nordheim”) and HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC (“HPIP”). All of the agreements are governed by Texas law.

In Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of America v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s long-standing Fobian rule disallowing claims against a bankruptcy estate for attorney’s fees arising from litigating issues that are “peculiar to federal bankruptcy law,” rather than basic contract enforcement. In so ruling, the Court recognized the presumption that “claims enforceable under applicable state law will be allowed in bankruptcy unless they are expressly disallowed.”

"In Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015), a divided U.S. Supreme Court resolved the circuit split regarding whether a bankruptcy court may, with the consent of the litigants, adjudicate a claim that, though statutorily denominated as “core,” is not otherwise constitutionally determinable by a bankruptcy judge. The majority held that so long as consent—whether express or implied—is “knowing and voluntary,” Article III of the U.S. Constitution is not violated by a bankruptcy court’s adjudication of such a claim.

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 is a prerequisite to a U.S. court enforcing, under the doctrine of comity, an order or judgment entered in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding or a provision in foreign bankruptcy law applicable to a debtor in such a proceeding.

One year ago, we wrote that the large business bankruptcy landscape in 2019 was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, with notable exceptions for disastrous wildfires, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, price-fixing fallout, and corporate restructuring shenanigans.

The year 2020 was a different story altogether. The headline was COVID-19.

In Short

The Situation: On August 11, 2020, a Credit Derivatives Determinations Committee for EMEA ("DC") unanimously determined that the Chapter 15 filing by British retailer Matalan triggered a Bankruptcy Credit Event under standard credit default swaps ("CDS").

The Result: The DC's decision diverged from its only prior decision (involving Thomas Cook) on whether a Chapter 15 petition constituted a Bankruptcy Credit Event.

Under the "single-satisfaction rule," although a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") may seek to avoid and recover avoidable transfers of a debtor's property from more than one transferee, the aggregate recovery is limited to the value of the property transferred. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined this rule in Jones v. Brand Law Firm PA (In re Belmonte), 931 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2019).

In Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 652, 2019 WL 2166392 (U.S. May 20, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rejection in bankruptcy of a trademark license agreement, which constitutes a breach of the agreement under section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, does not terminate the rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law.