The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its decision with respect to the appeal of Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation and has rekindled discussion as to the risks associated with an Operator’s right to commingle his own general funds with trust funds held for the benefit of Joint Operators.
Facts
Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Karl Oil and Gas Ltd., 2009 ABCA 99, 5 Alta. L.R. (5th) 1; on appeal from 2008 ABQB 444, 96 Alta. L.R. (4th) 329.
Vanquish Oil and Gas Corp. (“Vanquish”) operated certain oil wells. Under the 1990 Canadian Association of Petroleum Landman Operating Procedure under which Vanquish operated these wells, Vanquish was to receive well revenues in trust, it could commingle revenues with its other monies, and was to pay the revenues “only to their intended use”.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently ruled on a case1 dealing with the priority of claims to the bank accounts of a petroleum operator which had gone into receivership, where the operatorship was governed by the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure. The operator had failed to pay to the non-operators revenues of approximately $300,000, having only $58,000 left in the commingled account. The Operating Procedure imposes a trust on the production revenues but also expressly allows intermingling of these funds with the operator's general funds.
Vanquish Oil & Gas (“Vanquish”), now in receivership, was a trustee under a joint operating agreement for an oil well. It was required to remit 45% of the well’s net production proceeds to a proportional owner - either Karl Oil and Gas Ltd. or Choice Resources Corporation (who disputed the entitlement at the time).
In Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has held that depositor protection provisions in Cayman Islands law only apply in respect of depositors with deposits of CI$20,000 (US$24,400) or less.1 Depositors with more than CI$20,000 on deposit do not benefit from such provisions at all, even for their first CI$20,000. This means that, for persuasive policy reasons, the position in the Cayman Islands differs from the position in the EU under the deposit guarantee scheme.
Shareholder of a Korean corporation (“Cuzco Korea”), the sole member of a chapter 11 limited liability company debtor (“Cuzco USA” or the “Debtor”), brought an adversary proceeding against the Debtor and others, asserting claims directly, derivatively on behalf of Cuzco Korea and “double derivatively” on behalf of the Debtor. On the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the bankruptcy court for the district of Hawaii was required to consider the impact of Korean law on the derivative claims as well as notions of forum non conveniens.
On March 23, 2017, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) issued an opinion in the chapter 15 case of Banco Cruzeiro do Sul, S.A., a Brazilian bank (“BCSUL” or the “Debtor”), holding, among other things, that section 1521(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent foreign representatives from commencing state law fraudulent conveyance actions. See Laspro Consultores LTDA v. Alinia Corp. (In re Massa Falida Do Banco Cruzeiro Do Sul S.A.), No. 14-22974-BKC-LMI, Adv. Pro. No. 16-01315-LMI, 2017 WL 1102814 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
In a 33 page decision released March 29, 2017, Judge Sontchi of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court ruled on competing motions to dismiss the remaining claims and counterclaims in an adversary proceeding in the Affirmative Insurance bankruptcy – Adversary Proceeding Case No. 16-50425.
The Supreme Court has held that a principal was entitled to recover payments collected by its agent on its behalf following the agent's insolvency: Bailey and another (Respondents) v Angove's PTY Limited (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 47.