In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation is one case that has caused the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to revisit the permissibility of Make-Whole provisions, at least three times, over several years. Earlier discussions of the case have been the subject of prior CRR articles. See Fifth Circuit Holds that Chapter 11 Plan Does not “Impair” […]
Read MoreIn In re Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Patrick Taylor Adams, et al., Civ. A. No. 3:18-CV-727-L (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2020) [Dkt. No. 8], the District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently affirmed a bankruptcy court’s order reinstating the automatic stay against a creditor post-confirmation and preventing such creditor from exercising […]
Read MoreAddressing unknown future claims in a chapter 11 bankruptcy involves two competing concerns: (a) providing a debtor with a fresh start and (b) providing an unwitting claimant with due process. These competing concerns clash when a debtor seeks to confirm its plan of reorganization, which is intended to provide remedies to all the debtor’s creditors […]
Read MoreIn Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C. v. Ad Hoc Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Ultra Resources, Incorporated (In re Ultra Petroleum Corporation), Case No. 17-20793, –F.3d–, 2019 WL 237365 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (Oldham, J.), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a class of creditors is not “impaired” by a reorganization plan simply […]
Read MoreThe United States Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Texas recently held that a confirmed chapter 11 plan of a liquidated company, R.L. Adkins Corp. (the “Corporation”), was not required to specifically preserve bankruptcy-created rights of the Corporation against its former principal. See Harvey L. Morton v. Robert Lewis Adkins, Sr. (In re Robert Lewis […]
Read MoreFollowing the saga of asbestos-related bankruptcy cases, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC lacked standing to object to the confirmation of the chapter 11 plan of W.R. Grace & Co., because Garlock could not demonstrate it had an existing or imminent claim against Grace. See In re W.R. Grace & Co., No. […]
Read More
