Over the past few months, the economics of the oil and gas industry have changed dramatically. As oil and gas prices have fallen, so too have profit margins and working capital. Many companies will weather this storm. A fortunate few will expand their positions and acquire additional assets, some of which will be purchased from distressed companies. In dealing with these distressed companies and their assets, landmen and other oil and gas industry professionals will need to have a working-knowledge of select bankruptcy-related laws and concepts to protect their company’s assets.

The decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hutson v. Smithfield Packing Co. (In re National Gas Distributors, LLC)1 poses potentially serious problems for parties trading gas under the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) base contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will soon review this case of first impression about what constitutes a “swap agreement” under the expanded definition included in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code after the 2005 amendments.

The buyer of a Chapter 11 debtor's coal supply contract was not liable for the seller's obligations to the sales agent who secured the contract for the debtor-seller, according to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Al Perry Enterprises, Inc. v. Appalachian Fuels, LLC, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 22808 (6th Cir. Sept. 27, 2007). As the court explained, the buyer could not be liable to the sales agent "absent an express assumption of the [debtor's prior] obligations." Id. at *17.

Background

The decision in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. prohibiting parties from contracting around Bankruptcy Code section 553’s mutuality requirement may disrupt customary business practices, including those widely used in the energy, natural gas and crude oil markets, because it rules that contracting for cross affiliate netting does not “create” the mutuality required for setoff.

Introduction:  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. Previously, the bankruptcy court for the Eastern District of North Carolina ruled that what it termed a simple supply contract between a natural gas seller and an end-user, as a matter of law, does not constitute a swap agreement.

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.

Oil and gas producers in Texas and a handful of other states have had the comfort of believing that they held purchase money security interests against the production in the hands of first purchasers and proceeds of that production. Now, the law supporting that belief has come under fire.

The term “stalking horse” originally referred to a horse or type of screen a hunter used to conceal his position from intended prey. Today the term takes a new meaning altogether thanks to its application in the bankruptcy context. A modern day “stalking horse” is an interested buyer of a debtor’s assets who is offered incentives for being the first to announce its intent. As the initial bidder, the stalking horse sets the minimum purchase price and other terms of the transaction.

REEDSBURG UTILITY COMMISSION v. GREDE FOUNDRIES (July 13, 2011)