It’s often hard to tell whether the conflict between environmental cleanup laws and bankruptcy statutes is a bug or a feature. The two seem irreconcilable when the intent of environmental laws to protect public health and safety by imposing cleanup costs on the polluter runs headlong into the Bankruptcy Code’s design to give a debtor a fresh start. Frequently, the latter prevails.
On October 28, 2020, FERC declined to abrogate or modify firm natural gas transportation service agreements (“Gulfport TSAs”) between Gulfport Energy Corporation (“Gulfport”) and Rockies Express Pipeline LLC (“Rockies Express”) in response to a Rockies Express petition anticipating a potential Gulfport bankruptcy filing. After an expedited paper hearing, FERC concluded that the public interest does not presently require any modification, and thus, that the Gulfport TSAs on file remain just and reasonable.
When stakeholders in a bankruptcy disagree as to how assets should be distributed, the result may be intercreditor litigation that is both expensive and time-consuming. Such litigation can seem antithetical to the purpose of the Bankruptcy Code, which encourages stakeholders to approve a consensual restructuring plan. Nevertheless, many creditors conclude they have no other choice but to litigate.
The Bottom Line
In a decision published October 19, 2020, Judge Frank J. Bailey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts found that an Indian tribe was not subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.
As part of a complex series of related transactions, the debtor entered into a note purchase agreement with an investment bank. The agreement specifically disclaimed that the bank was acting as the debtor’s agent or owed the debtor any fiduciary duty. The note proceeds were to be used to pay the debtor’s shareholders to purchase their shares. The investment bank paid the proceeds directly to the shareholders. The trustee sought to avoid the payment as a fraudulent transfer.
It is common for E&P companies in chapter 11 to seek to reject burdensome midstream contracts under Bankruptcy Code § 365. Rejection has not been permitted by bankruptcy courts where such agreements create enforceable covenants running with the land (“CRWL”) because a CRWL is a real property interest of the midstream gatherer, not just a contract right. Accordingly, before a debtor can seek to reject midstream agreements, the bankruptcy court must first determine whether an enforceable CRWL exists.
BJ Services, a Texas-based provider of hydraulic fracturing (i.e., “fracking”) and cementing services for upstream oil and gas companies, filed for chapter 11 protection on July 20, 2020, in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, along with three of its affiliates. Their chapter 11 filings were prompted by unsuccessful restructuring negotiations with one of their equity sponsors—CSL Capital Management—which would have provided a $75 million new money investment, including $30 million in the form of DIP financing, in exchange for the majority of the reorganized equity.
Balance has been tipping over from creditors to shareholders and the pandemic is only bringing this deepening fault line to the fore.
Covid-19 slammed into the global consciousness this March and, as expected, immediately torpedoed the markets.
But despite the worsening economic data hogging news headlines, exacerbated by intensifying US-China tensions, the markets have paradoxically strengthened since. The S&P 500 has rebounded by more than 30 per cent since its March nadir, breaching its five-year pre-Covid-19 high.
In its October 22, 2020, CNH Diversified Opportunities Master Account, L.P. v.