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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 26

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

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

Is triangular set-off enforceable under US laws?

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 29 2009

It is not uncommon to find in trading agreements triangular set-off provisions, also commonly referred to as “cross-affiliates” set-off clauses

National gas distributors case broadens swap safe harbor, or does it?

  • Dentons
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2009

On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

What goes up a quick glance at Ohio oil and gas leases in bankruptcy

  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 5 2013

As Ohio enjoys its latest boom in oil and gas exploration, it is important to understand how oil and gas leases are treated in bankruptcy. Unsettled

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

Kelson Channelview LLC v. Reliant Energy Channelview LP

  • Lowenstein Sandler PC
  • -
  • 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

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

Bankruptcy court acted within discretion in concluding that trust did not meet the "adequate assurance of future performance" test

  • Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 8 2010

Resource Technology Corporation (RTC) used to be in the business of converting gas emissions from garbage landfills to electricity

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