We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 33

Kelson Channelview LLC v. Reliant Energy Channelview LP

  • Lowenstein Sandler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 20 2010

The term "stalking horse" originally referred to a horse or type of screen a hunter used to conceal his position from intended prey

Defending preference actions: understanding your rights as a creditor

  • Liskow & Lewis
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 14 2014

There is nothing more frustrating to a creditor than finally getting paid for goods or services, only to have a customer file for bankruptcy

Perfection and priority of oil & gas producers' liens in doubt

  • Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2009

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

NAESB contract not protected by Bankruptcy Code safe harbor provisions

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 8 2007

The decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hutson v. Smithfield Packing Co. (In re National Gas Distributors, LLC) poses potentially serious problems for parties trading gas under the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) base contract

Fifth Circuit finds that an electricity requirements contract is a “forward contract” exempt from Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance powers

  • Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 11 2012

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a requirements contract for electricity is a forward contract for purposes of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, settlement payments made under the contract are exempt from avoidance as preferences

Court reverses prior ruling that commodity supply contract is not swap agreement under Bankruptcy Code

  • Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 13 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code

A closer look at the Satcon Technology bankruptcy

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 21 2012

On October 17, 2012, Satcon Technology Corporation and various of its subsidiaries (collectively, "Satcon") filed chapter 11 petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware

A closer look at the Bicent Power bankruptcy

  • Fox Rothschild LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2012

On April 23, 2012, Bicent Holdings LLC, and various related entities (collectively "Bicent" or the "Debtors") filed petitions for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware

8th Circuit expands application of new value defense in preference actions

  • Cooley LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 22 2014

On March 20, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an important decision in Stoebner v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (In re LGI

Fifth Circuit applies safe harbor protection to power supply contract in real estate manager's bankruptcy

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 28 2012

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc. (In re MBS Mgmt. Servs., Inc.), Case No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. 2012), holding that a real estate management company’s electricity supply contract qualified as a “forward contract”, payments on account of which are protected from avoidance as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions