On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that redemptions of commercial paper made through the Depositary Trust Company (DTC) are entitled to the “safe harbor” protections afforded to settlement payments under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), and are, therefore, not preferential transfers, even though such payments were made prior to maturity.1 The Second Circuit is the first Circuit Court of Appeal to address the issue, which arises out of the Enron bankruptcy case.

Legal Framework

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.

On December 16th, the CFTC published for comment amendments to its regulations concerning the operation of a commodity broker in bankruptcy. The amendments would permit a bankruptcy trustee to operate, with the written permission of the CFTC, the commodity broker in the ordinary course, including the purchase or sale of new commodity contracts on behalf of the customers of the commodity broker under appropriate circumstances, as determined by the Commission.

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.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing to amend its Bankruptcy Rules to permit the trustee for a bankrupt futures commission merchant to continue to operate the business of the commodity broker in the ordinary course for a limited period of time.

In an interpretive statement, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has taken the position that “cleared-only contracts,” over-the-counter contracts submitted for clearing through a futures commission merchant to a derivatives clearing organization, should be included within the definition of “net equity” for purposes of U.S. Bankruptcy Code provisions applicable to commodity brokers. The CFTC’s interpretation generally would treat cleared-only contracts in the same manner as exchange-traded futures contracts in the event of a futures commission merchant bankruptcy.

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.

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.

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).