Overview

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., popularly known as Redwater. In a 5-2 split decision, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER/Regulator) assertion of its statutory enforcement powers over an insolvent licensee’s assets does not create a conflict with the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) as to trigger the constitutional doctrine of federal paramountcy.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., known as Redwater.

In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 (Dynex) affirmed that gross overriding royalty interests (GOR) could constitute interest in land provided the parties so intended and that intention was sufficiently evidenced in an agreement.

​On April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124. The decision is arguably the past year’s most hotly anticipated and discussed decision in Alberta, despite involving bankruptcy proceedings of a relatively small junior oil and gas company. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 split, upheld the trial judge’s decision that a receiver can disclaim or renounce uneconomic assets that are subject to costly environmental liabilities.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench has released its highly anticipated decision in Redwater Energy Corporation (Re), 2016 ABQB 278 (“Redwater”).

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s (the “AER”) final phase of changes to the Licensee Liability Rating Program (the “LLR Program”) comes into effect on August 1, 2015. The AER’s Bulletin 2015-13 (found here) says that the implementation date was delayed from May 1 to August 1, 2015, to give licensees more time to understand the implications of, and prepare for, the Phase-3 program changes in light of current market conditions.

When being sued, corporate and individual defendants should always confirm that the plaintiff has not been previously discharged in bankruptcy and failed to disclose the claim in the proceeding as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. In Guay v. Burack, 677 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012), the plaintiff brought numerous claims against various governmental entities, governmental officials and a police officer.

Before soliciting votes on its bankruptcy plan, a chapter 11 debtor that has filed for bankruptcy typically must obtain court approval of its disclosure statement. As part of the disclosure-statement approval process, interested parties are afforded the opportunity to object. For example, a party may object on the grounds that the disclosure statement lacks sufficient information about the debtor. Sometimes, however, a party objects to the disclosure statement because the chapter 11 plan described by the statement cannot be confirmed.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.