In Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C.v. Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Creditorsof Ultra Resources, Incorporated (In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation), Case No. 17-20793, –F.3d–, 2019 WL 237365 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (Oldham, J.), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a class of creditors is not “impaired” by a reorganization plan simply because it (a) incorporates the Bankruptcy Code’s restrictions on payment of unmatured interest and (b) fails to award unsecured creditors interest at the contractual rate.

A gasoline retailer defaults on its obligations under an ongoing Franchise Agreement that it has with a brand name in the oil & gas industry. What steps are available to the franchisor to protect its economic interests in that particular station or station(s)? How about if the franchisee/retailer files for bankruptcy protection? As the Energy Capital of the World, this issue is particularly relevant in Texas, home to thousands of retailers and dozens of the world’s top brands.

When a debtor files for bankruptcy, almost all proceedings to recover property from the debtor are automatically stayed by force of law. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). This provision, known as the automatic stay, is a central feature of the bankruptcy process, but uncertainty remains about aspects of its scope.

On March 26, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a decision by the District Court emanating out of the Puerto Rico Title III bankruptcy cases, found that Sections 928(a) and 922(d) of the Bankruptcy Code “permit, but do not require, continued payment during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings.”[i] The First Circuit found that these provisions pr

As discussed in an earlier post called “Moving Up: Bankruptcy Code Dollar Amounts Will Increase On April 1, 2019,” various dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code and related statutory provisions were increased for cases filed on or after today, April 1, 2019.

Ohio and other states where Frost Brown Todd has offices have long had witness and/or notary requirements for the execution of mortgages. Ohio Revised Code Section 5301.01 provides that a “mortgage . . . shall be signed by the . . . mortgagor. . . . The signing shall be acknowledged by the . . . mortgagor . . . before a . . . notary public . . .

Perhaps one thing we can agree on in discussing the healthcare industry: it is in a state of distress stemming from the challenges created by an ever-increasing regulatory burden, changes in reimbursement rates, uncertainty with the Affordable Care Act, mounting tort and employment litigation. The recent rampant growth of urgent care centers and retail clinics as well as technological advances and telemedicine have created a change in the manner in which healthcare services are delivered and consequently put pressure on providers to compete.

On March 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dealt another setback to plaintiffs trying to establish Article III standing to assert a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”). In five related FCRA appeals combined in Jaras v. Equifax, Inc., 2019 WL 1373198 (9th Cir. Mar.

Collateral descriptions in financing statements are often an afterthought for secured creditors, and are frequently prepared in the simplest way possible, sometimes due to carelessness, sometimes because the debtor wishes to maintain its privacy by not disclosing specific pieces of collateral or investments, and sometimes due to administrative simplicity to minimize the cost and hassle of future amendments to financing statements in deals where the debtor regularly exchanges collateral of the same type.

Following W.R. Grace’s filing for bankruptcy in April 2001, a series of cases were filed against Maryland Casualty, which was the company’s primary general liability insurer from 1962 to 1973. Specifically, the twenty-nine plaintiffs in this matter filed a lawsuit relating to their diagnosis of asbestosis, in the District Court of Montana in November 2001. The plaintiffs originally named the State of Montana only. Maryland Casualty was named in March 2002. Additionally, seven of the twenty-nine plaintiffs had previously filed suit against Maryland Casualty, in June 2001.