The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.
Summary and implications
Almost exactly one year on from the Order* coming into force, many people remain unaware that it is no longer possible to appoint an administrative receiver over an overseas incorporated company.
Lenders and indeed insolvency practitioners should be aware that this is the case even when dealing with qualifying floating charges created before 15 September 2003 but alternative strategies, including administration, may be pursued to the same effect.
Administrative receivership
Background
Until recently Russian legislation was not familiar with the concept of close-out netting. Although there was no prohibition for market participants to enter into netting agreements, Russian courts would not enforce such agreements in case of bankruptcy. This led to the use of complex structures to avoid the negative consequences of the application of Russian law and was a strong argument in favor of using foreign entities and application of foreign law to derivative transactions.
All businesses know that one key to profitability is risk management. Particularly in such industries as oil and natural gas, eligible financial contracts have emerged as an invaluable tool to hedge the risk associated with volatile foreign currency exchange, interest rates and commodity prices. Indeed, a large business has developed proffering over-the-counter derivatives (or ‘swaps’) and standardized exchange-traded derivatives (or ‘futures’) to do just that.
In the Spring of 2007, Canada’s Parliament amended several federal insolvency statutes so as to transfer the definition of the class of protected contracts known as “eligible financial contracts” (EFCs) from the federal insolvency statutes themselves to their respective associated regulations. On November 15, the Treasury Board approved the finalized regulations to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Introduction
On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).
The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act regulates transactions in fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables. It does this in part by creating a general trust for the benefit of produce sellers.
Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.
When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences:
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has announced that it will amend its Regulation 190.04(d)(2) regarding the operation of a commodity broker in bankruptcy. Currently, a bankruptcy trustee is prohibited, immediately upon the commencement of the commodity broker’s bankruptcy case, from processing any new trades on behalf of customers of the commodity broker, with limited exceptions.