(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 7, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court sustains the debtors’ objection to the creditor’s claim. The court determines that the creditor failed to establish that the transaction with the debtors was intended as a loan. Instead, the parties had formed a partnership with the creditor making capital contributions, rather than loans. Opinion below.
In a decision entered yesterday afternoon, Judge Shelley Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation to reject certain midstream contracts under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and, critically, made a non-binding holding that Sabine’s obligations under these contracts were not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law.
The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling in a chapter 11 case that could have a significant impact on future restructurings in the oil and gas industry.
On March 8, 2016, in the case of Sabine Oil and Gas Corp., Judge Shelley Chapman ruled that Sabine could reject certain pipeline and gas gathering agreements with two midstream gathering pipeline companies.
“You should try the chicken fried steak. It’s like a chicken and a steak got together and made a baby. A delicious, crispy baby.”
– Hoyt Fortenberry, True Blood
In a March 8, 2016 ruling from the bench, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a significant decision regarding the ability of a debtor in bankruptcy to reject gas gathering agreements and similar intrastate contracts. Judge Shelley Chapman, overseeing the bankruptcy case of In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., determined that those agreements could be rejected in bankruptcy, notwithstanding contractual provisions that purport to issue conveyances that run with the land.
Updates
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)
(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)
The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed an order of the bankruptcy court granting a debtor’s motion to avoid a judgment creditor’s lien on the debtor’s residence held in tenancy by the entirety with his non-debtor spouse, holding because the lien “fixed” under the Bankruptcy Code and thus impaired the debtor’s claimed exemption, it was avoidable.
A copy of the opinion is available at: Link to Opinion.