The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was laid before Parliament on 20 May 2020 and represents the most extensive changes in the insolvency landscape since the Enterprise Act came into force in 2003. Many of the proposals were originally consulted on in 2016, but were not progressed in light of Brexit until the COVID-19 crisis led to an urgent need for rapid and responsive reforms. The Bill is expected to come into force in June at the earliest.

The provisions of the Bill contain both:

2019 was a momentous year for the energy sector: The U.S. became a net oil exporter for the first time in recorded history and at the same time energy dropped to less than five percent of the S&P 500 Index. With the precipitous drop in commodity prices and macroeconomic volatility triggered by the oil price war and COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 presents challenges and change for the global and domestic energy sectors. We thank all of our valued clients and look forward to working with you to anticipate and solve problems and capitalize on industry and global trends.

As the economic turbulence associated with the downturn in commodity prices and the outbreak of COVID-19 continues, many energy companies may find their debt trading at significant discounts. For companies trying to manage liability and liquidity, this presents an opportunity to selectively repurchase debt and de-lever at prices well below par. Energy companies that are well-situated to capitalize on this window should carefully consider the corporate and tax ramifications debt buybacks present.

Corporate Considerations

As the U.S. energy industry comes to grips with the most dire economic crisis in its history, wrought by an invisible virus and global oil price war, and with many exploration and production (E&P) producers substantially adjusting their capital and maintenance budgets, all parties must carefully assess their partners’ financial positions. The bankruptcy filing of a joint venture partner (whether operator or nonoperator) can lead to substantial problems for the other joint venture partner(s) and potentially hamstring operations on the co-owned lands.

THE ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

On December 8, 2014, the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 published a 400-page report containing far-reaching recommendations. The report is the result of a three-year study process undertaken by a number of leading insolvency and restructuring practitioners charged by ABI with evaluating the U.S.

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Hellas Telecom., S.A.R.L., 2014 NY Slip Op 24268 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2014), the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on two important issues related to the right to sue for recovery with respect to notes issued under indentures. First, the court held that assignments of a right of collection, but not title to the claims or the note itself, are insufficient as a matter of New York law to confer standing upon an assignee to sue for recovery on a defaulted note.

On June 20, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex. 2014). In Ritchie, a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation attempted to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority shareholder’s interest in the corporation by bringing a claim of shareholder oppression under § 11.404 of the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC), the Texas receivership statute.