Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Chapter 11 debtor’s “rejection [(under Bankruptcy Code (Code) §365(a)] of a filed-rate [natural gas] contract … relieve[d] it of the obligation to continue performance absent the approval of FERC [(the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission],” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on March 14, 2022. In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2022 WL 763836, *1 (5th Cir. Mar 14, 2022). Moreover, held the court in affirming the bankruptcy court on a direct appeal, Code §1129(a)(6) did not “require the bankruptcy court to seek FERC’s approval before it confirmed [the debtor’s] reorganization plan.” Ultra followed, as expected, the reasoning of its precedent, In re Mirant Corp., 378 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2004), and, more important, carefully balanced the power of FERC and the nation’s bankruptcy courts.
*May exclude premium content
By Tinamarie Feil
We all have experienced technology’s dramatic effect on bankruptcy practice, particularly in the electronic filing of documents and in the electronic communication and sharing of information among parties.
By Michael L. Cook
The appellate courts have been busy explaining or clarifying preference and fraudulent transfer law. Although novices may think the Bankruptcy Code (Code) is clear on its face, imaginative counsel have found gaps in the statute and generated rafts of litigation since the Code’s enactment in 1979. Recent appellate decisions, summarized below, show that courts are still making new law or refining prior case law.
By Alfred S. Lurey
A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee’s bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.
By Theresa A. Driscoll
The Supreme Court concluded that because the 2017 amendments exempted debtors located in two States, it was not “uniform” as it did not apply equally to all debtors regardless of where they were situated and, therefore, the statute was unconstitutional.