Last year we reported (here) that Alberta’s Redwater Energy Corporation decision signaled good news for lenders and noteholders secured by Alberta O&G assets because the federal Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) prevailed over conflicting provisions in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”).

Last year, we reported that Australia had proposed significant insolvency reforms that, in our view, are long overdue ("A Major Leap Forward for Australian Insolvency Laws").

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court, in Czyzewski et al., v. Jevic Holding Corp., et al., confirmed that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit “priority skipping” in Chapter 11 structured dismissals. In doing so, the Court held that, although the Code does not explicitly provide what, if any, priority rules apply to the distribution of estate assets in a Chapter 11 structured dismissal, “[a] distribution scheme in connection with the dismissal of a Chapter 11 case cannot, without the consent of the affected parties, deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the . . .

Reversing the lower courts, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has today held that, under New York law (which governs 95% of all indentures), the early repayment of indenture notes in Chapter 11 is an optional redemption requiring the payment of make-whole notwithstanding the automatic acceleration of the notes due to the Chapter 11 filing. Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), Case No. 16-1251 (5th Cir. Nov. 17, 2016).

Recent Events

The federal district court in New Jersey recently denied an appeal by maritime creditors of Hanjin to lift bankruptcy protections and allow arrest of Hanjin's vessels in and near U.S. ports. The federal district court judge agreed with the bankruptcy judge's grant of blanket protection to Hanjin and directed creditors of Hanjin to file claims in the Korean bankruptcy proceeding. Those claims are now due by October 25, 2016 in the Korean proceedings, according to an amended order issued by the Korean judge.

A number of towage and bunker suppliers in the Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. chapter 15 case have requested the intervention of a district court judge to clarify whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Court has authority to "effectively extinguish[] . . . maritime liens" on chartered vessels. The bankruptcy judge has acted to try to preserve Hanjin's assets and ability to continue its business, as he should do. The case concerns roughly $14 billion worth of cargo afloat or held up in container yards across the world. At least 10 vessels are known to be steaming toward U.S.

This past weekend, Hanjin vessels commenced unloading operations on the U.S. West Coast for the first time since Hanjin filed its bankruptcy petition with the Seoul Central District Court in Korea. Vessels have also been reportedly unloading in Japanese and Canadian ports. There is an obvious overriding public interest in having the many millions of dollars worth of cargo resume moving to its various destinations.

Yesterday afternoon in Newark, New Jersey, Judge John K. Sherwood of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd.'s request to recognize its Korean bankruptcy case and to provide U.S. bankruptcy protection to its assets and operations within the United States. However, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's protection is subject to another hearing on Friday to sort out what arrangements can be made among the various stakeholders.

The Wall Street Journal has recently observed that if Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd. fails in its attempts to reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy proceedings in Korea, it would represent the largest container shipping company to date to collapse. In the meantime, its creditors have apparently been active in Chinese, Singaporean, and American ports.

Prior to May 19, 2016, enforcing security against a financially-troubled O&G borrower in Alberta was a difficult proposition because the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) had promulgated regulations to the effect that it would not license acquirers of producing wells unless potential environmental liabilities for the costs of abandonment, remediation and reclamation for non-producing wells were covered, either by the acquirer assuming the liabilities or posting the necessary R&R bonding.