On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed in re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp.1 that a midstream gathering agreement did not create a real covenant that ran with the land,2 and therefore, a debtor may reject the agreement as an “executory contract” under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.3

There has been a recent rash of discussions on whether foreign trusts are truly better for asset protection purposes than DAPTS (domestic asset protection trusts), especially DAPTs created by someone who does not reside in one of the states that has enacted DAPT law.

Can an individual debtor make an oral false statement about an asset to a creditor and get away with it by discharging the creditor’s claim in his or her bankruptcy? On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling in which the Court unanimously answered this question in the affirmative.

“Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 22, 2018. In re Franchise Services of North America Inc., 2018 WL 2325909, *1 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). According to the court, applicable Delaware law would not “nullify the shareholder’s right to vote against the bankruptcy petition.” Id.

Relevance

On May 25, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a district court’s decision that Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation could reject certain gathering service agreements in bankruptcy. The agreements, with Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC, provided that Nordheim would supply Sabine with certain gathering, transportation and treatment services for Sabine’s natural gas and condensate production.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Mgmt. Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by and to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside of the scope of the § 546(e) safe harbor even if they are made through financial institutions or other covered entities. The Supreme Court’s decision resolves a circuit split over how the § 546(e) safe harbor applies to transactions involving conduit entities and could impact future disputes involving safe harbors under the Bankruptcy Code.

On May 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court decision finding that producer Sabine Oil and Gas Corp. could reject certain midstream gathering contracts in its bankruptcy case.i

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by or to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s “safe harbor” from a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code, even if those transfers are made through financial institutions or other covered entities.

Here’s an aggregation of some of my Twitter posts from May 10-15, 2018, with links to important cases, articles, and news briefs that restructuring professionals will find of interest. Don’t hesitate to reach out and contact me to discuss any posts.

May 10 – 15, 2018

BK RELATED CASES:

The District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District of Florida recently denied a motion to reconsider an order awarding appellate attorney’s fees to borrowers who were the prevailing party on appeal, reversing judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of the mortgagee.