Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case Bash v.

Bankruptcy

At the risk of stating the obvious, the collapse of oil and gas prices in the last several quarters has had a profound impact on the industry. Some E & P companies have been able to weather this storm, but other have not been so fortunate. In the time between 2014 and September 14, 2016, 102 oil and gas producers with cumulative debts of over $67 billion, 13 midstream companies with cumulative debts of over $17 billion and 132 oilfield service companies with cumulative debts of over $14 billion have filed bankruptcy petitions.

In a recent memorandum decision, Judge Robert S. Bardwil of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California sanctioned a Sacramento attorney and ordered him to complete a local e-filing course because he did not maintain copies of filed documents that included the original “wet” signature.

Key points:

• While DIP Lenders rightfully negotiate for super-priority administrative expenses which trump post conversion chapter 7 administrative expenses, these provisions are not uniformly enforced.

• DIP Lenders should require the inclusion of specific language providing that section 364(c)(1) super-priority claims have priority over chapter 7 administrative expense claims, including those to be incurred by a chapter 7 trustee above the agreed upon “burial expenses.”  

Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York published proposed amendments to its local rules effective December 1, 2016 (the “Proposed Amendments”). Links to the Bankruptcy Court’s notice to the bar with respect to the Proposed Amendments and the full text of the Proposed Amendments are provided below. The Proposed Amendments are currently open for public comment. The comment deadline is November 14, 2016 by 5:00 p.m.

Below is summary of substantive changes effected by the Proposed Amendments which may be of interest to practitioners:

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided it will review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Johnson v. Midland Funding LLC.

A link to the docket is available here: Link to Docket.

A recent decision by an appeals court of the State of New York highlights the deceptive complexity of bringing non-contractual claims by or on behalf of noteholders under the seemingly boilerplate remedies provisions in trust indentures. At issue was the standard indenture language that defines the authority of a trustee to bring claims under the indenture, and in particular whether the trustee has the power to bring non-contractual claims under its own volition (not directed by a majority in principal amount of bondholders) against persons not party to the indenture.

More and more frequently the following question arises: “What do we do about personal, sensitive, and business information owned by or residing with a financially troubled company?” Information is an intangible asset and often has significant value. Information increasingly resides with a party other than the owner and may need to be transferred in unexpected ways. Unfortunately, the thinking about this question often arises after financial distress is readily apparent, such as after a bankruptcy filing.

In Reichhold Holdings US, Inc., on August 24, 2016, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled that a vendor's reclamation trumped a lender's lien on inventory, arising from a post-petition DIP loan (that was used to repay the prepetition loan).

Generally, reclamation claims are subject to existing liens on inventory. However, where a prior loan is paid, the underlying liens are extinguished, and the existing reclamation claim becomes the first "lien" on the inventory. Liens arising from a subsequent DIP loan are junior to the pre-existing reclamation claim.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently announced proposed amendments to its local rules. The proposed amendments will not take effect until December 1, 2016, but we could not wait to take a peek at the future of practice in the Southern District.