Bad news for midstream counterparties of bankrupt oil & gas producers: you may not be able to rely (as much as you might have expected) on covenants “running with the land” to save your contracts from rejection in bankruptcy.
“I’m inconsistent, even to myself.”
-Bob Dylan
Bankruptcy is a process that permits people to discharge debts, but not all debts are dischargeable. In a recent opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “District Court”) reversed a U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the “Bankruptcy Court”) ruling that a state court criminal restitution claim is dischargeable.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS
HIGHLIGHTS:
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 7, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court sustains the debtors’ objection to the creditor’s claim. The court determines that the creditor failed to establish that the transaction with the debtors was intended as a loan. Instead, the parties had formed a partnership with the creditor making capital contributions, rather than loans. Opinion below.
In a decision entered yesterday afternoon, Judge Shelley Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation to reject certain midstream contracts under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and, critically, made a non-binding holding that Sabine’s obligations under these contracts were not “covenants running with the land” under Texas law.
The US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a ruling in a chapter 11 case that could have a significant impact on future restructurings in the oil and gas industry.
On March 8, 2016, in the case of Sabine Oil and Gas Corp., Judge Shelley Chapman ruled that Sabine could reject certain pipeline and gas gathering agreements with two midstream gathering pipeline companies.
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)
(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)