Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Jurisdictional boundaries within the federal system as between bankruptcy and district courts as well as various federal agencies can be a maze that is at times nearly impossible to navigate. Further complicating matters are those cases involving state-regulated issues that add abstention to the mix. On Jan. 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided some additional color to the abstention issue by ruling that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction to decide an exclusively state-governed question related to emergency energy price controls. See, Electric Reliability Council of Texas v. Just Energy Texas (In re Just Energy Group), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 253, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 111207. The Just Energy decision, arose from events that took place from Feb. 13, 2021, to Feb. 20, 2021, caused by storm Uri, which severely impacted Texas' power grid. During the storm, state regulators imposed artificial price caps on the sale of wholesale electricity that upset the entire Texas energy market and forced Just Energy and many others into bankruptcy.
For context, it is helpful to first understand the full extent of Texas' regulatory scheme governing electric utilities within the state. Texas' Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) created "a comprehensive and adequate regulatory system for electric utilities to assure rates, operations, and services that are just and reasonable to the consumers and to the electric utilities," which was designed as "a pervasive regulatory scheme intended to be the exclusive means" of regulating electric utilities within the state. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), the state agency created pursuant to PURA, is given "ultimate authority over Texas' intrastate electric grid." PUCT is required by law to appoint an independent group to oversee the wholesale of electricity in the state, for which it granted authority to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc. (ERCOT). As part of its responsibilities, ERCOT is tasked with setting market-clearing prices, under the direction of PUCT.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.