On March 25, 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 111. Briefly, the Court held that abandonment and reclamation obligations (ARO) of oil and gas assets operate to depress the value of those assets for the purposes of fraudulent preferences legislation, notwithstanding that they are not provable claims in bankruptcy. The Court also held that serial summary dismissal applications on different grounds are an abuse of process.

Regulatory obligations often conflict with bankruptcy law. It has long been considered a necessary benefit that people get a fresh start through bankruptcy. The law provides for exceptions to this principle, on the basis of equally important public policy grounds that certain penalties and obligations should not be so easily avoided.

We previously discussed the Court's decision in Yukon (Government of) v Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2020 YKSC 16, which opened the door to partial termination of agreements in a receivership, an action generally considered to not be permitted in the past.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in Dal Bianco v Deem Management Services Limited, 2020 ONCA 585 [Dal Bianco] is the most recent pronouncement on resolving procedural conflicts between the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC, 1985, c B-3 (BIA) and provincial enactments.

It has long been the law that termination of contracts is permissible under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) with the effect of the termination being to create an unsecured claim for damages in place of the contract. What has not been permitted is allowing insolvent companies to pick and choose parts of an agreement to terminate. Following a recent decision arising out of receivership proceedings in the Yukon, it may now in some circumstances be possible to terminate parts of an agreement.

The Alberta Energy Regulator's Statutory Power is Not in Conflict With the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

In a November 17, 2016 ruling likely to impact ongoing debt restructurings, pending bankruptcy proceedings and negotiations of new debt issuances, the Third Circuit recently overturned refusals by both the Delaware bankruptcy court and district court to enforce “make-whole” payments from Energy Futures Holding Company LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, “EFIH”) to rule that the relevant indenture provisions supported the payments. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision^[1]  in the much-watched litigation involving the residential construction company, TOUSA, Inc. ("TOUSA"). The decision reversed the prior decision of the District Court, ^[2] reinstating the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court.^[3]

Background

Indentures often contain make-whole premiums payable upon early redemption of the debt, and term B loan agreements often include "soft call" protection in the form of prepayment premiums during the early life of the loan. If the debt issuer becomes subject to a chapter 11 proceeding after the debt issuance, the question then arises as to how this payment obligation is to be treated: Does the make-whole or prepayment premium constitute unmatured interest due as a result of the debt acceleration, which would be disallowed, or is it liquidated damages?