Last week, we discussed the complexities of metals exploration chapter 11 bankruptcy cases and addressed several of the notable issues that arise in those cases. The discussion of significant issues continues below.

The past several years have not been kind to commodities exploration companies.  The price of gold dropped to $1,051/oz. in November 2015, a level that had not been seen since 2009.  Although the price of gold rebounded somewhat in January and February 2016 to just over $1,200/oz., the price has steadily decreased after peaking at $1,921/oz. in August 2011.  The price of silver has also decreased dramatically, with its price off 60% from the 2011 highs.  Copper has not escaped this trend, and was recently selling for just over half of its 2011 price.

Since the third quarter of 2014, the appetite for lending to small and midsized exploration and production companies (E&P Companies) has decreased substantially for several reasons. The most significant reason is the drop in oil prices to the WTI Spot close at Cushing, Oklahoma in the $35 per barrel range at the end of 2015.

We discussed the announcement that Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”) was due to be placed into special administration in our previous blog outlining how the rules for energy supply companies work, the supplier of last resort (“SoLR”) regime and what energy supply company special administration entails.

As has been widely reported, the recent energy price volatility (coupled with the price cap limiting suppliers’ ability to pass increased costs on to consumers) has caused a number of energy supply company failures. Yesterday saw the announcement of the collapse of Bulb, one of the UK’s largest energy suppliers, with it being due to be placed into special administration very shortly.

This is the first energy special administration we’ve seen. So how are the insolvency rules different for energy companies? What is a special administration, and why is this the first one?

As we discussed in our previous blog relating to the Supplier of Last Resort Process, energy company insolvencies bring with them a range of different processes and requirements which other companies do not need to consider.

With the gradual opening of energy supply markets allowing new energy providers to challenge the established providers and bring increased competition to the market, the last two decades have seen an increase in smaller energy providers entering the market and sharing a growing customer base. But what happens to the customers when an energy provider becomes insolvent?

When creditors are left holding the bag after providing valuable goods or services to a company that files for bankruptcy relief, they often feel misused and that an injustice has occurred. After all, they are legitimately owed money for their work or their product, and the debtor has in effect been unjustly enriched because it received something for nothing. Unsecured creditors do not have recourse to collateral, and typically have to wait in line to receive cents on the dollar.

This past November, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas sided with the majority of circuit courts when it held (i) that bankruptcy courts may apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to class proofs of claim and administrative proofs of claim, and (ii) that a putative representative may file a conditional claim on behalf of a putative class that may later be certified.

Today’s blog article, which looks at the ability of a debtor to assume, assign, or reject oil and gas “leases” under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, is the third in the Weil Bankruptcy Blog series, “Drilling Down,” where we review issues at the intersection of the oil and gas industry and bankruptcy law.