When one party can unilaterally prevent a bankruptcy filing – action steps and best practices

Commodities Alert

Restructuring Alert

Winter is here, with the attendant risk of another major weather event impacting the energy production industry, and, specifically, the wind power generation industry in Texas. Last year, Winter Storm Uri significantly disrupted the Texas power grid and forced several energy originators, distributors, and buyers to consider restructuring alternatives.

Volatile commodity prices in 2020 led to the bankruptcy of many oil and gas producers. While some analysts expect oil and gas prices to rise during 2021, the US Energy Information Administration’s 2021 annual outlook advises that a return to 2019 levels of US energy consumption will take years.[2]

An insight into the key issues and challenges facing global infrastructure projects, and a look at possible solutions and mitigations.

In brief

Numerous energy-intensive companies having production facilities in Germany benefit from energy regulatory opportunities to reduce their electricity costs. The economic benefits of using these opportunities can be significant and quickly amount to several million euros a year. In the context of a number of recent transactions and restructurings relating to energy-intensive companies, we have analysed how the planned transaction/restructuring would affect existing energy regulatory benefits.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in Orphan Well Association et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited et al., 2019 SCC 5, commonly referred to as “Redwater”. Specifically, Redwater clarifies the priority as between environmental obligations and those afforded to secured creditors in insolvency proceedings.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in Orphan Well Association et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited et al., 2019 SCC 5, commonly referred to as “Redwater”. Specifically, Redwater clarifies the priority as between environmental obligations and those afforded to secured creditors in insolvency proceedings.

The current decline in oil prices, which continues to show no signs of a long-term reversal, is having unexpected and unwanted consequences, many of which may turn into long-lasting troubles for the oil and gas industry, especially for its investors.

The Third Circuit recently held, in a case from the Energy Future Holdings bankruptcy, that a losing stalking horse bidder can provide sufficient value to the debtor’s estate to receive an administrative claim for a break-up fee and expenses. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 990 F.3d 728, 748 (3rd Cir. 2021). This represents an expansive view of potential administrative claims related to those costs, providing bidders significant potential protections for their bids.

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]