On March 8, 2016, New York bankruptcy judge Shelley Chapman issued a ruling In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, which, if upheld, could dramatically alter the balance of power and the valuation of companies in the midstream energy market.
Judge Chapman ruled that the debtor, Sabine Oil and Gas Corp, could reject, or breach, its gas treatment and gathering contracts with two midstream companies. In a procedural twist, she determined that she could not rule, without further proceedings, whether certain covenants in the contracts were, in fact, covenants running with the land which cannot be affected by the rejection of the contract. However, in an unusual move, she wrote a "non-binding" opinion that the covenants, which included the dedication of hydrocarbons from certain leases and covenant to pay gathering fees to the midstream companies, were not covenants running with the land under Texas law. Unless Judge Chapman changes her mind when the issue is ripe for her "binding' opinion, the midstream companies could lose all of their rights under the contracts and be relegated to unsecured creditors in the case.
What makes this case particularly significant is that the contracts at issue are similar to those used throughout the industry and, until now, were believed to be the type of contracts a Debtor could not reject in bankruptcy. Midstream companies collectively invest billions of dollars annually in developing the infrastructure necessary to gather, process, and transport oil and gas. In exchange, they receive a promise of payment, if and when oil and gas is produced, and also dedications of the underlying oil and gas mineral interests and associated acreage. The contracts characterize these dedications as covenants running with the land, and they record them in the real property records, so that the contracts are not only binding on the parties to the contracts, but also upon anyone who acquires the mineral rights in the dedicated area. This serves to protect their substantial capital investment and protect the benefit of their bargain.
Or so they thought.
The Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to "reject," or breach, an "executory" contract that is burdensome to the estate, with court approval. There is no definition of an executory contract in the Code but the case law has generally defined an executory contract as one where both parties have an ongoing obligation to perform after the date of the bankruptcy filing. However, the case law has excluded rights that run with the land from the definition of executory contracts. So, for example, deed restrictions may meet the definition of an executory contract, but cannot be rejected because they are binding not only upon the parties to the contract but upon anyone who acquires the land burdened by the deed restrictions.
Judge Chapman wrote, in the "non-binding' portion of her opinion that the covenants were not truly covenants running with the land under Texas law, even though the parties agreed they were, because they did not reserve an interest in real property; they just delineated the terms of the parties' contract for providing services. In other words, just because the parties said it was so, didn't make it so.
Judge Chapman's opinion will not be the last word on the subject. The same issues have been taken under advisement by bankruptcy judge Laurie S. Silverstein in In re Quicksilver Resources, Inc., a Chapter 11 case pending in the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. There the opposing parties have framed their arguments differently and are being supported by an amicus brief filed by the Gas Processors Association and the Texas Pipeline Association. A ruling in that case is expected soon.
You can read Judge Chapman's Bench Decision on Debtor's Omnibus Motion to Authorize Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts, docket no. 872, here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
