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 30

Supreme Court of North Dakota finds that simple interest, rather than compound interest, is appropriate under the North Dakota unpaid royalties statute. Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assoc., Inc., 2013 ND 218 (N.D. 2013)

  • Stinson Leonard Street LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 11 2014

In Van Sickle, the plaintiffs each owned a royalty interest in a well that was originally leased by Comanche Oil Company, which later assigned its

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

Lehman Brothers ruling calls into question enforceability of cross-affiliate netting in bankruptcy

  • Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 18 2010

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in the case of In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that significantly restricts the scope of setoff rights for energy traders and other participants in derivatives and forward commodity markets

What goes up ... Quick glance 3 at Ohio oil and gas leases in bankruptcy

  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 2 2013

As with our prior posts on oil and gas leases in bankruptcy (located here and here), this post presents another thorny issue - namely, "Is an oil and

Bankruptcy Court: parties may not contract around mutuality requirement to circumvent prohibition against triangular setoffs

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 14 2009

The decision in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. prohibiting parties from contracting around Bankruptcy Code section 553’s mutuality requirement may disrupt customary business practices, including those widely used in the energy, natural gas and crude oil markets, because it rules that contracting for cross affiliate netting does not “create” the mutuality required for setoff

Sanctions awarded under the bankruptcy court’s ‘inherent authority’

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 13 2010

The Bankruptcy Court sanctioned the indirect parent corporation of the chapter 11 debtors and the indirect parent corporation's counsel under its "inherent authority" and 28 U.S.C. section 1927 but not Rule 9011 after finding that the parent corporation abused the bankruptcy process by causing two of its subsidiaries to file bankruptcy petitions as a litigation tactic to shield itself from a $189 million liability in an environmental damage case

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

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

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

Third Circuit reaffirms 1999 O’Brien decision regarding application of Bankruptcy Code Section 503(b) to break-up fees of stalking horse bidders

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 28 2010

In 1999 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Calpine Corp. v. O’Brien Environmental Energy, Inc. (In re O’Brien Environmental Energy, Inc.), 181 F.2d 527, denying Calpine Corporation’s request for the payment of a break-up fee after Calpine lost its effort to acquire the assets of O’Brien Environmental Energy out of bankruptcy