Sanchez Energy: Eagle Ford Lien Fight and the Fifth Circuit Single-Satisfaction Ruling

Sanchez Energy Corporation filed chapter 11 on August 11, 2019 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), case number 19-34508 before Judge Marvin Isgur. The Eagle Ford operator entered chapter 11 with roughly $3.05 billion in assets against approximately $2.28 billion in funded debt and emerged on June 30, 2020 as Mesquite Energy, Inc., a privately held reorganized debtor.

A carve-out in the Final DIP Order excluded avoidance-action proceeds from DIP collateral, giving the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors a direct economic stake in challenging the prepetition liens of the 7.25% Senior Secured Noteholders on four Eagle Ford leases (later expanded to six). The challenge ran from January 2020 through January 2026 and produced multiple equity-allocation rulings on 8,000,000 reorganized-equity shares before ending with the Fifth Circuit's May 30, 2025 single-satisfaction ruling — affirmed when the Supreme Court denied certiorari on November 24, 2025 — allocating the senior secured noteholders, ultimately including Apollo Global Management, 100% of Mesquite's equity. A January 30, 2026 settlement order closed out the litigation with an $8.5 million cash payment to the Creditor Representative and mutual releases.

Case record

Dismissed on · Jun 25, 2021

• Jun 1, 2026 · Final Decree Closing Cases
• May 30, 2026 · CNO Regarding Motion for Final Decree
• May 8, 2026 · Motion for Final Decree

Public case facts. Searchable documents available. Full docket access requires Pro.

View case

What has changed in Sanchez Energy Corporation since this article was published?

Debtor(s)	Sanchez Energy Corporation (jointly administered with affiliated debtors)
Court	U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston Division)
Case Number	19-34508
Petition Date	August 11, 2019
Confirmation Date	April 30, 2020
Effective Date	June 30, 2020
Post-Emergence Name	Mesquite Energy, Inc.
Judge	Hon. Marvin Isgur
Claims Agent	Prime Clerk LLC
Assets at Filing	~$3.05 billion (March 31, 2019)
Funded Debt at Filing	~$2.28 billion
DIP Facility	$200 million final ($150M new money + $50M roll-up; later expanded to ~$350M aggregate); Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB as DIP agent; Ad Hoc Group of Senior Secured Noteholders as lenders
Plan Enterprise Value	$85 million (stipulated, exclusive of Causes of Action)

Eagle Ford Operations and the SOG-Sanchez Structure

Sanchez Energy was a publicly traded independent E&P focused on horizontal development in the Eagle Ford Shale of South Texas. As of March 31, 2019, the company held roughly 466,000 gross (264,000 net) Eagle Ford acres across four operating areas, anchored by the Catarina Assets acquired in 2014 (~106,000 net acres in Dimmit, La Salle, and Webb Counties) and the much larger Comanche Assets acquired in 2017 in joint venture with Gavilan Resources, LLC (~318,000 gross / 155,000 net acres). Smaller Maverick and Palmetto positions — including the Briscoe Ranch area that later became one of the Challenged Leases — rounded out the Eagle Ford footprint. The First Day Declaration of CFO Cameron W. George reported approximately 79,000 Boe/d of production in 2018 and approximately 76,000 Boe/d in Q1 2019 on Q1 revenue of approximately $217 million, after the company crossed $1 billion in annual revenue for the first time in 2018.

Sanchez Energy had no employees of its own. All workforce, operating, and administrative services were provided by Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation (SOG), a private oil and gas company founded in 1972 and owned by members of the Sanchez family, under a set of agreements known as the SOG Agreements. CEO Antonio R. Sanchez III, along with other Sanchez family members, sat on both sides of those arrangements. Those related-party dealings — including the Catarina Midstream sale, the Carnero Pipeline transaction, and executive compensation — became the subject of the Reorganized Debtors' post-emergence claims against the Sanchez parties, eventually settled in 2022.

Commodity Decline and the Missed Senior Notes Coupon

Sanchez Energy attributed the filing to the combination of a roughly five-year decline in commodity prices and a balance sheet built up during the 2014–2018 higher-price environment. The First Day Declaration described commodity price volatility that eroded revenue, profitability, cash flow, and proved reserve values to a level that could not service the company's funded debt stack, particularly after the leveraged 2017 Comanche acquisition. Q1 2019 revenue of approximately $217 million stood against an interest burden that, on the senior notes alone, exceeded $200 million annually.

The proximate trigger was a missed coupon. The company had a $35.2 million interest payment due July 15, 2019 on the 6.125% Senior Notes and an $18.1 million payment due August 15, 2019 on the 7.25% Senior Secured Notes. Sanchez elected to skip the July 15 coupon to preserve liquidity while it negotiated with bondholders, entering the customary 30-day grace period. When those negotiations did not produce a consensual restructuring before the grace period expired, the chapter 11 petitions followed on August 11, 2019. The company's Series A and Series B convertible perpetual preferred dividends had already been suspended in March 2019, and common stock was trading at roughly $0.08 a share at petition, implying a market capitalization of about $7.5 million.

Capital Structure and the SN UnSub Silo

The capital structure was bifurcated between debt at the publicly traded parent and debt at SN UnSub, an unrestricted subsidiary that held the Catarina assets and ran a separate borrowing base. The Disclosure Statement and First Day Declaration detail the prepetition stack.

At the parent level, Sanchez Energy had approximately $2.28 billion of funded debt across four tranches: a $25 million First-Out Senior Secured Revolving Credit Facility administered by Royal Bank of Canada (with $7.9 million drawn and $17.1 million in letters of credit outstanding); $500 million of 7.25% Senior Secured Notes maturing February 2023, with Delaware Trust Company serving as collateral trustee; $1.15 billion of 6.125% Senior Unsecured Notes maturing January 2023; and $600 million of 7.75% Senior Unsecured Notes maturing June 2021. Delaware Trust Company's collateral position underpinned everything that followed: the trustee held liens on oil and gas properties through April 2018 Deeds of Trust whose adequacy of description later became the centerpiece of the Lien-Related Litigation.

At the subsidiary level, SN UnSub carried a $240 million reserve-based revolving credit facility administered by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (with approximately $153 million outstanding at filing) and $500 million of preferred units bearing a 10.0% per annum return, held by GSO and Intrepid. The SN UnSub silo was structurally senior to the parent capital and held the Catarina production base. Sanchez Energy's existing equity — approximately 100 million common shares plus 619,503 Series A and 2,466,013 Series B convertible perpetual preferred shares (each carrying a $50 per share liquidation preference) — was placed in a Class 8–10 grouping under the plan and cancelled at emergence with no recovery.

DIP Financing and the Avoidance-Action Carve-Out

Sanchez filed an emergency cash collateral and DIP motion on petition day, with the Ad Hoc Group of Senior Secured Noteholders — the holders of the 7.25% Senior Secured Notes — providing new-money financing. After several months of contested proceedings, including a limited objection from the Ad Hoc Group of Unsecured Noteholders, the court entered the Final DIP and Cash Collateral Order on January 22, 2020.

The final facility was a $200 million commitment consisting of $150 million in new-money term loans plus a $50 million roll-up of prepetition secured note obligations for those secured noteholders who became DIP lenders. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB served as administrative and collateral agent. The DIP carried superpriority claims and first-priority liens subject to a customary professional carve-out, and was used to refinance the First-Out RBL, fund operations, and pay retained-professional fees. By the time the Disclosure Statement was filed in April 2020, the facility had been enlarged to a $350 million aggregate DIP comprising approximately $175 million in roll-ups, with the DIP claims classified as Class 3 under the plan.

The Final DIP Order's carve-out expressly excluded avoidance actions and their proceeds from the DIP Collateral. The unsecured creditors' committee accordingly had a direct economic incentive to challenge the secured noteholders' liens because any value recovered from a successful avoidance action would flow to unsecured creditors rather than to the DIP Lenders. The Wall Street Journal later reported that bondholders subsequently challenged the post-emergence financing economics, alleging that one DIP participant tripled its money on the facility.

Plan Confirmation and Mesquite Energy Emergence

The Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court on April 30, 2020 and went effective on June 30, 2020, eliminating approximately $2.3 billion of debt and renaming the reorganized debtor Mesquite Energy, Inc. Confirmation came against a backdrop of sharply compressed commodity markets: in March 2020, as oil prices declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sanchez Energy disclosed it expected to issue a going concern warning while finalizing plan terms with its creditor constituencies. The parties stipulated to an enterprise value of $85 million for plan and litigation purposes, exclusive of the value of Causes of Action.

Under the Confirmation Order and Disclosure Statement, Class 1 (Other Secured Claims) and Class 2 (Other Priority Claims) were unimpaired and paid in full. Class 6 (Intercompany Claims) and Class 7 (Intercompany Interests) were either reinstated or compromised at the debtors' election. Classes 8–10 (Existing Preferred and Common Equity, plus Section 510(b) claims) received nothing. The contested distribution sat in the middle of the waterfall: Class 3 (DIP Claims), Class 4 ($500M 7.25% Secured Notes Claims), and Class 5 (General Unsecured Claims) all looked to a single pool of reorganized equity whose ultimate split depended on the outcome of the lien litigation.

The plan authorized 10,000,000 shares of New Common Stock. At the effective date, 2,000,000 shares were distributed pro rata to Class 3 (DIP Claim holders). The remaining 8,000,000 shares — the "Post-Effective Date Equity Distribution" — were placed in escrow pending court adjudication of the Lien-Related Litigation, with a roughly $700 million notional reorganized-equity value at confirmation.

To clear the path to emergence, the Reorganized Debtors negotiated a comprehensive midstream 9019 settlement with Carnero G&P LLC, Catarina Midstream LLC, Sanchez Midstream Partners, LP (SNMP), Seco Pipeline LLC, and TPL SouthTex Processing (Targa). The settlement returned $8 million in cash (with a contingent additional $6 million) from previously drawn letter-of-credit proceeds, cut Catarina Gas gathering rates by 18% and Catarina Water rates by 75%, eliminated certain minimum volume commitments, and preserved continued service from gathering and processing counterparties. SNMP and Catarina Midstream papered the deal in June 6, 2020 8-K and settlement filings, with Evolve Transition Infrastructure (the renamed SNMP) entering a follow-on $10 million Catarina Midstream settlement in May 2022. A separate Sanchez ruling held that gathering agreements could be rejected even when associated real property covenants survived.

UCC Lien Challenge and the Phase 2 Avoidance Ruling

Less than a week after the Final DIP Order was entered, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors moved on January 24, 2020 for standing to challenge the perfection of the 7.25% Senior Secured Noteholders' liens on four oil and gas leases — Koenning, Hausser, HIL, and Briscoe Ranch — covering more than 113,000 acres in the company's flagship Eagle Ford footprint. The committee argued that the April 2018 Deeds of Trust that purported to grant those liens failed to identify the leases with "reasonable certainty" under Texas law, and that even if the original liens were merely voidable, subsequent Correction Affidavits filed during the preference period qualified as avoidable preferential transfers under Section 547. The net book value of the four Challenged Leases exceeded $580 million, with a preliminary PV-10 estimate of at least $540 million.

By the time the litigation reached its first substantive ruling on the merits, the Challenged Leases had grown to six properties: Harrison, Hausser, Koenning, Briscoe Ranch, Pilgrim Lake, and Metcalf. On March 9, 2021, Judge Isgur issued the Phase 2 Memorandum Opinion holding that three of the six Challenged Leases had avoidable liens because the April 2018 Deeds of Trust referenced them with the wrong recording information or wrong county identifications, while the liens on the remaining three were validly granted and perfected. The DIP Lenders appealed the Phase 2 ruling within weeks. The case then proceeded through a series of valuation and equity-allocation proceedings that lasted more than two further years, alongside the Delaware Trust Company substantial-contribution dispute, in which the bankruptcy court allowed only a small portion of the indenture trustee's $928,345 administrative-expense claim.

From Bankruptcy Court Equity Award to Fifth Circuit Reversal

In the summer and fall of 2023, after years of supplemental briefing on valuation and the application of avoidance recoveries to equity distribution, Judge Isgur ruled that the value of the avoided liens should flow to unsecured creditors. The result awarded Class 4 and Class 5 holders a roughly 70% ownership stake in reorganized Mesquite Energy, with the bankruptcy court treating the avoidance recovery as a separate asset that could be allocated alongside, rather than netted against, the secured creditors' returned liens. The August 2023 ruling resolved a years-long fight over how to value and distribute the post-effective-date equity pool, and the Ad Hoc Group of Senior Secured Noteholders and DIP Lenders, represented by Jones Day, almost immediately filed notices of appeal, securing joint certification for direct appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

The Fifth Circuit took the case directly and, on May 30, 2025, unanimously reversed. Writing on the application of 11 U.S.C. § 550, the panel held that the bankruptcy court's allocation violated the "single satisfaction" rule of § 550(d) by allowing the estate to recover both the avoided liens themselves — which the senior secured noteholders had voluntarily released to the estate under the confirmed plan — and the full economic value of those liens for distribution to unsecured creditors. Because the senior secured noteholders' returned liens, combined with their unchallenged liens and superpriority DIP claims, exceeded the stipulated $85 million enterprise value, there was nothing left for junior classes. The mandate was straightforward: the DIP Lenders and Senior Secured Noteholders were entitled to 100% of Mesquite Energy's reorganized equity. Lowenstein Sandler's analysis and a Duane Morris alert framed the ruling as a circuit-level affirmation that bankruptcy estates cannot collect both the property and the value under § 550 when the property has already returned to the estate.

The Creditor Representative, acting on behalf of the unsecured creditor classes, petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on August 18, 2025, framing the question as a circuit conflict over whether bankruptcy courts may award both property and value to restore an estate to its pre-transfer position. The petition drew a reply brief on November 4, 2025, but on November 24, 2025 the Court denied review, leaving the Fifth Circuit's ruling in place and effectively confirming that Apollo Global Management — through its post-emergence position in Mesquite Energy — would receive the full reorganized-equity stake.

With the appeals exhausted, the Ad Hoc Group moved on December 3, 2025 for entry of final judgment on the Fifth Circuit mandate. After a January 9, 2026 hearing at which the parties announced a deal in court — characterized in Law360 coverage as a final off-ramp from the litigation — the court entered the Order Resolving Lien-Related Litigation on January 30, 2026. The order allocated 100% of all 10,000,000 plan distribution shares to Class 3, paid the Creditor Representative $8.5 million in cash for litigation reimbursement and wind-down, exchanged comprehensive mutual releases between the Ad Hoc Group, the Reorganized Debtors, the Creditor Representative, and the litigation funders, and dismissed two adversary proceedings — Delaware Trust Company v. Mesquite Energy (Adv. 21-3862) and Fidelity Management and Research Company v. Delaware Trust Company (Adv. 22-3145) — with prejudice. The order expressly noted, but did not adjudicate, a reservation of rights filed by Carnero G&P. In a separate November 2025 ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation jurisdiction to adjudicate Carnero G&P's contractual claims against Mesquite Energy, holding that the dispute did not arise from implementation or execution of the reorganization plan.

Professional Retentions and the Jackson Walker Fee Dispute

The debtors retained Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as lead counsel, Alvarez & Marsal North America as restructuring and financial advisor, Moelis & Company LLC as investment banker (whose transaction page frames the deal as a $3.1 billion restructuring), and Jackson Walker LLP as Texas co-counsel. Final fee orders allowed Akin Gump approximately $23.84 million (later reduced to $21.46 million under a Professional Fee Settlement reached at confirmation), Alvarez & Marsal $8.01 million (reduced to $7.21 million), Moelis $6.53 million, and Jackson Walker $1.91 million. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors retained Milbank LLP as co-counsel, FTI Consulting as financial advisor, Jefferies LLC as investment banker, and Locke Lord LLP as local co-counsel; final fee orders allowed Milbank $12.65 million, FTI $5.85 million, and Jefferies $3.75 million.

The Jackson Walker engagement returned to the docket in March 2024, when the U.S. Trustee filed a motion for relief from judgment regarding Jackson Walker's fee allowances in the case. The motion was part of the broader Southern District of Texas controversy over the undisclosed personal relationship between former Jackson Walker partner Elizabeth Freeman and Judge David R. Jones (and disclosure issues touching Judge Isgur's docket). The dispute was procedurally separated from the main case via an Agreed Order transferring it to a miscellaneous proceeding for discovery in May 2024 and continues to be litigated outside the Sanchez docket.

Two other contested matters round out the case. In September 2022, the Reorganized Debtors brought claims against the Sanchez family parties — Antonio R. Sanchez Jr., Antonio R. Sanchez III, Patricio Sanchez, Eduardo Sanchez, Gerald Willinger, and Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation — for breaches of fiduciary duty and corporate waste tied to prepetition related-party dealings, including the Catarina Midstream sale, the Carnero Pipeline transaction, and executive compensation. The bankruptcy court approved a 9019 compromise under which the Sanchez parties paid $2 million in cash to Mesquite Energy in exchange for mutual releases through the settlement effective date and the disallowance and expungement of all Sanchez-party claims. Separately, Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Inc. asserted a heavily contested administrative expense claim arising from prepetition drilling services, which the court resolved in a March 2021 opinion. In March 2026, the Texas Business Court ruled on a further dispute between Mesquite Energy and Sanchez Oil & Gas over allocation of proceeds from a prior trade secret misappropriation lawsuit, dividing the proceeds equally between the parties and apportioning historical legal expenses on the same basis.

Key Timeline

Date	Event
Aug 11, 2019	Chapter 11 petitions filed; case designated complex
Aug 12–13, 2019	First-day relief heard; emergency cash-collateral / DIP order entered
Sep–Oct 2019	Contested DIP proceedings; objections from unsecured noteholders
Jan 22, 2020	Final DIP and Cash Collateral Order entered
Jan 24, 2020	UCC files sealed motion for standing to challenge liens
Apr 30, 2020	Plan confirmed
Jun 6, 2020	Midstream 9019 settlement filed
Jun 30, 2020	Plan effective date; emergence as Mesquite Energy, Inc.
Aug 2020	Final fee applications heard and approved
Mar 9, 2021	Phase 2 lien opinion: three of six Challenged Leases avoidable
2021–2023	Further phases on valuation and equity allocation
Sep 15, 2022	Sanchez family compromise motion filed
Aug 4, 2023	Bankruptcy court rules unsecured creditors entitled to majority Mesquite stake
Sep 11, 2023	Joint certification for direct Fifth Circuit appeal
Mar 29, 2024	U.S. Trustee files Jackson Walker fee motion
May 30, 2025	Fifth Circuit reverses; secured noteholders entitled to 100% of equity
Aug 18, 2025	Cert petition filed at U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 24, 2025	Cert denied
Dec 3, 2025	Ad Hoc Group moves for entry of final judgment
Jan 9, 2026	Hearing; settlement announced on the record
Jan 30, 2026	Order Resolving Lien-Related Litigation entered

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is the claims agent for Sanchez Energy?

Prime Clerk LLC serves as the claims and noticing agent. The firm maintains the official claims register and distributes case notifications to creditors and parties in interest.

What was the final equity allocation in reorganized Mesquite Energy?

Under the January 30, 2026 Order Resolving Lien-Related Litigation, all 10,000,000 plan distribution shares were allocated to Class 3 (DIP Claim holders, comprising the Ad Hoc Group of Senior Secured Noteholders), and the Reorganized Debtors paid $8.5 million to the Creditor Representative for litigation reimbursement and wind-down.

What did the Fifth Circuit's Sanchez Energy decision hold?

In its May 30, 2025 ruling, the Fifth Circuit held that 11 U.S.C. § 550(d)'s "single satisfaction" rule barred the bankruptcy court's allocation, because the estate could not recover both the avoided liens — which had been returned to the estate when the senior secured noteholders released them under the confirmed plan — and the full economic value of those liens for distribution to unsecured creditors.

Who was the DIP lender in the Sanchez Energy chapter 11?

The DIP financing was provided by the Ad Hoc Group of Senior Secured Noteholders (the holders of the 7.25% Senior Secured Notes), with Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB serving as administrative and collateral agent on a final $200 million facility ($150 million new money plus a $50 million roll-up), later expanded to a $350 million aggregate DIP referenced in the Disclosure Statement.

For more bankruptcy case coverage, visit the ElevenFlo bankruptcy blog.

Sources

1. filed chapter 11 /documents/c5b3272e-c499-4586-89bc-324fb889c6e7/
2. post-emergence claims against the Sanchez parties /documents/259a1c8a-8873-48e3-a237-d8ff3ae15b1b/
3. Disclosure Statement /documents/4660d465-538b-4eda-8c51-fddb31a50754/
4. Final DIP and Cash Collateral Order /documents/a8ac5669-1aa1-41ec-961b-5940632a203e/
5. Confirmation Order /documents/783c8dcc-7f66-4995-8975-a6739a04f52a/
6. midstream 9019 settlement /documents/a0ecb93b-a1ef-42cc-8886-5a231f75c62a/
7. standing to challenge /documents/c47d0dba-e732-4226-9cab-f92155f52006/
8. Phase 2 Memorandum Opinion /documents/3b6f77bf-5433-4154-80cf-a2ea1d51245f/
9. moved on December 3, 2025 for entry of final judgment /documents/dbd9e431-99d5-4298-b659-0ba7e6a0a473/
10. Order Resolving Lien-Related Litigation /documents/7a2f39af-7a21-46a0-9e0a-3ee5ae589a3f/
11. $23.84 million /documents/0d0fa3a3-79c4-4d27-ab4a-183476e2f9db/
12. $8.01 million /documents/c25c2ef9-5856-497a-9978-1e5eaacee9db/
13. Moelis $6.53 million /documents/819029a5-c4eb-427e-9313-59b4fcb82b44/
14. Jackson Walker $1.91 million /documents/d3acdf5e-1b78-48cf-9ba5-df9ec55e71da/
15. Milbank $12.65 million /documents/9d34f972-98fd-4b7b-93c8-3bf6a9fb45fc/
16. FTI $5.85 million /documents/4b51d09b-a53c-4e31-9d02-dfdcd08481d9/
17. Jefferies $3.75 million /documents/26fcdf2f-8529-46b1-9f82-7bfad1ad7641/
18. motion for relief from judgment /documents/6c9009c2-29a9-461e-9c2d-d649b4d5f770/
19. Agreed Order /documents/70704508-25ed-49bb-89bc-0ad954f3b694/
20. Mesquite Energy, Inc. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/07/01/2055936/0/en/Sanchez-Energy-Successfully-Completes-Financial-Restructuring-Emerges-as-Mesquite-Energy-Inc.html
21. May 30, 2025 single-satisfaction ruling https://octus.com/resources/articles/fifth-circuit-reverses-sanchez-lien-ruling/
22. denied certiorari on November 24, 2025 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/supreme-court-declines-appeal-of-apollos-mesquite-energy-win
23. Wall Street Journal later reported https://www.wsj.com/articles/sanchez-energy-bondholders-say-fidelity-tripled-its-money-on-postbankruptcy-loan-11629242826
24. confirmed by the bankruptcy court on April 30, 2020 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/sanchez-energy-approved-to-exit-bankruptcy-ownership-not-set
25. disclosed it expected to issue a going concern warning https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/sanchez-energy-expects-to-issue-going-concern-warning-filing
26. June 6, 2020 8-K and settlement filings https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1362705/000155837020007466/tmb-20200606x8k.htm
27. Evolve Transition Infrastructure https://content.edgar-online.com/ExternalLink/EDGAR/0001362705-22-000009.html?hash=18f29debb69a04a904243c6f5f70a374096ce2868a909462ebf2c31c5f58c52e&dest=snmp-20220527ex103801972_htm
28. associated real property covenants survived https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/insolvencybankruptcy/1092484/the-rules-of-rejectionin-re-sanchez-s-new-take-on-real-property-covenants
29. Delaware Trust Company substantial-contribution dispute https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/onpoint/2021/5/indenture-trustees-must-provide-substantial-contribution-to-qual.html
30. roughly 70% ownership stake https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/junior-creditors-win-70-ownership-post-bankruptcy-oil-company-2023-08-04/
31. treating the avoidance recovery as a separate asset https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/texas-bankruptcy-court-awards-majority-8655134/
32. August 2023 ruling resolved a years-long fight https://www.law360.com/articles/1707797/sanchez-energy-s-unsecured-creditors-win-majority-stake
33. Jones Day https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2025/05/secured-lenders-win-victory-in-sanchez-bankruptcy
34. joint certification for direct appeal https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsb-4_19-bk-34508/pdf/USCOURTS-txsb-4_19-bk-34508-13.pdf
35. unanimously reversed https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-5th-circuit/117331659.html
36. there was nothing left for junior classes https://www.law360.com/bankruptcy-authority/articles/2352808/5th-circ-sanchez-ruling-nixes-double-dip-ch-11-decision
37. Lowenstein Sandler's analysis https://www.lowenstein.com/news-insights/videos-listing/sanchez-energy-fifth-circuit-affirms-single-satisfaction-rule
38. Duane Morris alert https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/fifth_circuit_halts_double_recovery_debtor_after_chapter_11_preference_period_transfer_0825.html
39. petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-208/370025/20250818144213166_Cert%20Petition.pdf
40. reply brief on November 4, 2025 https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-208/383480/20251104111323148_Cert%20Reply%20Brief.pdf
41. denied review https://www.law360.com/articles/2413888/justices-won-t-hear-dispute-over-so-called-ch-11-double-dip
42. Law360 coverage https://www.law360.com/bankruptcy-authority/articles/2428491/sanchez-energy-lenders-float-deal-to-end-ch-11-lien-fight
43. held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation jurisdiction https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-20207-CV0.pdf
44. transaction page https://www.moelis.com/transactions/sanchez-energy-corporations-restructuring/
45. prior trade secret misappropriation lawsuit https://tcjl.com/business-court-splits-baby-in-dispute-over-settlement-proceeds-in-suit-between-eagleford-gas-producers/