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 39

Drilling down: a deeper look into the distressed oil & gas industry part 3the ability to assume or reject oil and gas leases

  • Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2015

The oil and gas world embraces a language all its own. It’s a language that is wrapped in history and littered with unique terms of art, acronyms

Risk and opportunity amid falling oil prices

  • Jones Day
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 2 2014

The mainstream media have been trying to predict, on almost a daily basis, the causes of, and the winners and losers (mostly focused on the latter

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

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

Energy Future Holding Corp. files a chapter 11 case to restructure roughly $50b of debt

  • Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 6 2014

On April 29, 2014, power giant Energy Future Holding Corp. ("Energy Future"), along with 70 subsidiaries, filed for chapter 11 protection in the

“Officer” titles do they confer insider status?

  • Dechert LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2014

Insider status in U.S. bankruptcy carries with it significant burdens. Insiders face a one year preference exposure rather than the 90 day period

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

Provide the electric service and keep the money: the latest development in bankruptcy law involving payments made to an electric supplier

  • Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 7 2012

On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553, (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012