On March 8, 2016, a bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York issued a much-anticipated decision, In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation,¹ that will undoubtedly influence the reorganization strategies of certain exploration and production (E&P) companies and have a significant impact on midstream companies.

With the steep collapse of oil and gas prices in the last eighteen months, dozens of exploration and production companies have declared bankruptcy and many more companies are expected to file for bankruptcy protection unless prices rebound dramatically. As the prospect of further bankruptcies looms, it is important for parties to understand how to adequately protect their security interests and the nature of competing liens that could prevent them from fully realizing on the value of the collateral securing their counterparty’s obligations.

Securities Alert February 1, 2016 E&P Restructurings: Focus on Uptiering Transactions By: Jennifer Wisinski, Paul Amiel, Bill Nelson and Kristina Trauger Times are tough, very tough, for many mid-cap and small-cap exploration and production (“E&P”) companies. Crude oil prices have fallen from more than $100/barrel in July 2014 to a twelve-year low of less than $30/barrel in January 2016. Natural gas prices are at a three-year low. The growing consensus is that depressed prices will experience a slow recovery that may continue into the 2020s.

Precipitous commodity price declines that began in mid-2014 continued to disrupt the oil and gas industry in 2015, outlasting the expectations of many analysts. By the end of 2015, prices for both Brent and WTI crude were fluctuating in the mid to upper $30s per barrel, down from highs of over $100 a barrel in mid-2014.

On November 18, 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed intentional fraudulent transfer claims asserted by a bankruptcy litigation trustee against former shareholders of Lyondell Chemical Company in Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.) (Lyondell II). By adopting a strict view of what constitutes intent, the opinion tightens pleading standards applicable to these cases. It bears watching whether other courts will apply Lyondell II's more demanding pleading standards.

A recent decision in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York clarifies that restructuring options under Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 are available to foreign issuers of U.S. debt, even if those issuers have no operations in the United States (In re Berau Capital Resources PTE Ltd.). The decision could have widespread implications for cross-border restructuring transactions involving U.S.-issued debt, since the ability to utilize Chapter 11 or Chapter 15 offers many advantages for foreign issuers.

Background

Under long-established common law, loans must be paid only upon maturity, not before. This "perfect tender in time" rule is the default rule in a number of jurisdictions. Many indentures and credit agreements therefore either bar prepayments altogether with "no call" provisions or permit prepayments with "make whole" provisions that require the payment of a specified premium to make up for the loss of future income.

Sophisticated real estate lenders spend significant amounts of time and energy attempting to insulate themselves from potential bankruptcy filings by their borrowers. A primary reason, which many an experienced real estate lender has found out the hard way, is the risk that a debtor in bankruptcy may “cram down” a plan of reorganization over its lender’s objection. Under a typical cramdown plan, a debtor may stretch out payments to its secured creditor for several years and attempt to replace its negotiated interest rate with a new, below- market rate of interest.

In the past decade, Chapter 11 practice has witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon: structured dismissals.¹ Broadly speaking, the term structured dismissal is an umbrella term for a dismissal order that includes additional bells and whistles, such as releases, protocols for claims administration or provisions permitting the gifting of assets to junior stakeholders. Like a Chapter 11 plan, a structured dismissal often identifies how proceeds are to be distributed while retaining jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court for claims administration and other specified matters.

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.¹ The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.