Bankruptcy

At the risk of stating the obvious, the collapse of oil and gas prices in the last several quarters has had a profound impact on the industry. Some E & P companies have been able to weather this storm, but other have not been so fortunate. In the time between 2014 and September 14, 2016, 102 oil and gas producers with cumulative debts of over $67 billion, 13 midstream companies with cumulative debts of over $17 billion and 132 oilfield service companies with cumulative debts of over $14 billion have filed bankruptcy petitions.

On Friday, March 27, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) submitted by the Senate and President Trump just signed the bill. The bill provides for $2.2 trillion in emergency aid to ease the financial impact of the COVID-19 crisis.

This post provides a quick primer on the administrative expense claims. These claims are entitled to priority for actual and necessary goods and services supplied to a debtor in bankruptcy. For a claim to qualify for administrative expense status, a debtor must request that the claimant provide goods and services post-petition or induce the claimant to do so. The goods or services must result in a benefit to the bankruptcy estate. And the claimant bears the burden of proof that a claim qualifies for priority treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A).

On January 14, 2019, facing “billions of dollars in liability claims from two years of deadly wildfires,”[i] PG&E Corporation and its regulated utility subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, reported that they expect to file petitions under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California on or about January 29, 2019.

Perhaps this is one of the first articles you’re reading about the debt crisis in Venezuela. It won’t be the last. The situation there is bad and will get worse.

The Bottom Line

In a recent decision in the Southern District of New York, the court addressed a challenge to a secured-for-unsecured debt exchange offer that raised and answered a host of questions on the potential vulnerability of offers of this type. In Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources (SDNY December 6, 2016), the court dealt with standing to pursue a challenge; TIA §316(b) after Marblegate and MeehanCombs/Caesars; the no-action clause and allegations of conflict of interest of the trustee; the remedies clause; and discrimination against non-QIBs.

As many investors anticipated, the deep trough in the commodities market over recent years resulted in a number of companies in commodity industries restructuring their balance sheets through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Because companies often reorganize in the midst of a market downturn, a commodity company’s low EBITDA during this time usually results in low values being placed on the company’s reorganized equity.

Once a giant of the U.S. economy, the coal industry  now faces uncertain times due to lower global demand, a boom in domestic natural gas production, over- levered capital structures and stringent environmental regulations. This depressed environment has attracted the attention of certain distressed investors and alternative investment funds looking to capitalize from an eventual upswing in the coal industry.

At the COP26 climate summit in November 2021, over forty countries committed to phase out use of coal-fired power.