Oil and gas producers in Texas and a handful of other states have had the comfort of believing that they held purchase money security interests against the production in the hands of first purchasers and proceeds of that production. Now, the law supporting that belief has come under fire.

A Florida bankruptcy court recently clarified what constitutes a contract to extend financial accommodations for the benefit of the debtor, and the circumstances in which those contracts could be assumed, rejected or terminated. In re Ernie Haire Ford, Inc., 403 B.R. 750 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2009).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, overseeing the bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, the “Debtors”), entered an order on July 2, 2009 (the “Bar Date Order”), establishing September 22, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) as the deadline for the filing of claims against the Debtors (the “Bar Date”).

On June 10, 2009, the sale of substantially all of Chrysler's assets closed, just 42 days after the country's third largest automaker filed for bankruptcy protection. The closing followed a contentious sale hearing before the Bankruptcy Court, an expedited appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and a brief stay imposed by the United States Supreme Court. The source of the contention: three Indiana state pension funds, arguing that the sale of Chrysler's assets constituted a sub rosa plan of reorganization that upended the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code.

On Friday, the new General Motors (GM) began operations with a new corporate structure, and is now primarily owned by the governments of the U.S., Canada and Ontario, along with the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust. The result of an asset sale approved by the bankruptcy court on July 5, the new GM will narrow its focus to four core brands (Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC). Also, the number of U.S.

The court overseeing the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and various subsidiaries (the “Debtors”), has entered an order establishing deadlines and procedures for filing claims against the Debtors. In terms of procedural requirements, the order places unusual burdens on parties whose claims are based on derivative contracts and guarantees.

A Virginia bankruptcy court has issued a decision that should be a major eye-opener for any entity that engages in tax-free exchanges under section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued a case useful for credit bidders that successfully bid on their own collateral at a bankruptcy sale, which goes forward without a specific agreement "carving out" expenses. Borrego Springs Bank N.A. v. Skuna River Lumber L.L.C., (In re Skuna River Lumber, LLC), 564 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2009).

As bankruptcy courts continue to play a key role in restructuring the U.S. economy, courts appear to be at odds as to whether WARN Act claims should proceed through adversary proceedings or through the bankruptcy claims process. While courts have come to differing conclusions on the issue, a commonality appears to be that generally courts will lean toward resolving WARN Act claims through whichever process is the most efficient in a particular case.

Under section 363(f) of the bankruptcy code, a trustee may sell assets of the bankruptcy estate free and clear of liens and other interests. Generally, absent consent of the lienholder, a trustee may only sell assets free and clear of liens under one of the following conditions: