The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code exempts payments for electricity provided under a requirements contract from avoidance as preferences. At least where the facts match those of the subject case, MBS Mgmt. Serv., Inc. v. MXEnergy Elect., Inc., No. 11-30553, 2012 WL 3125167 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012), such payments are exempt.
Earlier this summer, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion in the New Century Holdings bankruptcy addressing the definition and purpose of the "Divestiture Rule." See Carr v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (In re New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.), Adv. No. 09-52251(KJC)(Bankr. D. Del.
The Bankruptcy Code provides a number of “safe harbors” for forward contracts and other derivatives. These provisions exempt derivatives from a number of Bankruptcy Code provisions, including portions of the automatic stay,1 restrictions on terminating executory contracts,2 and the method for calculating rejection damages.3 The safe harbor provisions also protect counterparties to certain types of contracts from the avoidance actions created under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the preference and fraudulent transfer statutes.4
The Olympics may be over, but a potential clash of titans is gearing up in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case of Stockton, California. Municipal bond insurer National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”) has challenged Stockton’s eligibility to be a debtor under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, and is focusing expressly on the c
On July 9, 2012, Judge Mary F. Walrath of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware disallowed a claim for rejection damages related to a real estate development agreement, because the claim had been released upon the termination of an LLC Agreement, and the underlying ground lease never came into existence. In re Magna Entm’t Corp., 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3089 (Bankr. D. Del. July 9, 2012).
Background
Earlier this month, Tri-Valley Corporation and various affiliates (collectively "Tri-Valley" or "Debtors") filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. This post will look briefly at Tri-Valley's business, why the company filed for bankruptcy as well as Tri-Valley's objectives while in bankruptcy.
In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.
In In reAm. Capital Equip., LLC1 the Third Circuit addressed the issue of whether a bankruptcy court has the authority to determine at the disclosure statement stage that a Chapter 11 plan is unconfirmable without holding a confirmation hearing. The court held that when a plan is patently unconfirmable, so that no dispute of material fact remains and defects cannot be cured by creditor voting, a bankruptcy court is authorized to convert the case to Chapter 7 without holding a confirmation hearing. Am.