Canada: Focus on Insolvency Law, May 2005 - Androscoggin Energy LLC – Blue Range Revisited

Last Updated: September 21 2005
Article by Thomas F Pepevnak and David W. Mann

Originally published in July 2005


In only the second case heard in Canada on the subject of eligible financial contracts, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently handed down a decision in the reorganization of Androscoggin Energy LLC. In so doing they provided guidelines for determining those types of contracts that are not subject to the general stay created pursuant to Canadian insolvency legislation.

Blue Range – "Derivatives 101"

Blue Range Resources, a producer of natural gas, obtained protection under the CCAA on March 2, 1999. Blue Range had a number of longterm natural gas supply agreements with, among others, Enron, Engage and Duke Energy. These three parties sought a declaration that their supply contracts were eligible financial contracts by virtue of section 11.1(1)(h), namely that they were "a spot, future, forward or other commodity contract".

Mr. Justice LoVecchio felt otherwise and decided that, since the master gas supply agreements were capable of being settled by physical delivery, they could not be considered eligible financial contracts.

Enron, Engage and Duke Energy appealed, and a nervous gas trading industry sought to intervene through the submissions of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association ("ISDA"). Madam Justice Fruman, speaking for the Alberta Court of Appeal, overturned Androscoggin Energy LLC – Blue Range Revisited

LoVecchio J.’s decision on the basis that restricting forward commodity contracts in s.11.1(1)(h) to cash-settled contracts was contrary to the plain meaning of the section and inconsistent with Parliament’s objective of protecting the risk management structure within the derivatives market.

In finding that the physically-settled contracts under consideration in Blue Range did constitute eligible financial contracts on the basis that they were forward contracts in respect of a commodity (and therefore a "forward commodity contract"), the Alberta Court of Appeal found:

Like the other items in s.11.1(1), forward commodity contracts are financial hedges and risk management tools. Interpreting them in the context of the rest of the section requires that they share certain traits. The contracts listed in s.11.1(1) deal with units that are the equivalent of any other unit. Therefore commodities must be interchangeable, and readily identifiable as fungible commodities capable of being traded on a futures exchange or as the underlying asset of an over-the-counter derivative transaction. Commodities must trade in a volatile market, with a sufficient trading volume to ensure a competitive trading price, in order that the forward commodity contracts may be "marked to market" and their value determined. This removes from the ambit of s.11.1(1)(h) contracts for commercial merchandise and manufactured goods which neither trade on a volatile market nor are completely interchangeable for each other.1 (4th) (Alta. Q.B.) ("Blue Range Chambers Decision Decision"), paragraph 44 While there were some detractors to the Blue Range Appeal Decision (particularly those that felt the eligible financial contract test used was too broad), the clarification that it provided has generally been wellreceived and new participants (including financial institutions) have entered the gas trading industry.

Androscoggin – The Lower Court’s Decision - "I Guess That’s Why They Call It The Blues"

Androscoggin operated a co-generation facility in the State of Maine and had entered into long-term gas supply contracts with each of Pengrowth Corporation, Canadian Forest Oil Ltd., and AltaGas Ltd. (the "Alberta Parties"). The contracts were made in 1997 and called for the Alberta Parties to provide set volumes of gas to Androscoggin at an agreed price for a 10 year period. In the intervening period the price of natural gas had risen faster than what had been contemplated in the agreements, and the Alberta Parties were out of the money at the time of the Androscoggin filing.

On November 26, 2004, Androscoggin sought protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in Maine. Later that same day, Androscoggin made an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under section 18.6 of the CCAA and obtained a stay of proceedings.

Notwithstanding that Androscoggin’s filing for protection was an event of default under the gas contracts, the Alberta Parties could not terminate their agreements because Androscoggin continued to pay for the gas it received. In fact, Androscoggin’s co-generation facility had ceased operations and Androscoggin was reselling the gas, the profit margin being its major source of revenue while under protection. The Alberta Parties brought an application before Mr. Justice Farley on January 24, 2005 to have the gas contracts declared eligible financial contracts in order that the Alberta Parties could terminate them.

Justice Farley denied the motion on two grounds. Firstly, he preferred Justice LoVecchio’s reasoning in Blue Range, as contracts settled by physical delivery of a commodity could not be eligible financial contracts. Secondly, he found that even if the gas contracts had been considered eligible financial contracts, the agreements could not be terminated by virtue of Androscoggin’s continued payments for gas under the agreements.2

The Androscoggin Appeal and the Intervention of ISDA – "Kind Of Blue"

The ramifications of Justice Farley’s comments had a profound impact on the parties, as well as on the derivatives industry. The Alberta Parties sought an expedited appeal because of a hearing scheduled under the Chapter 11 proceedings, on February 22, that sought to have the gas contracts assigned.

The industry sought involvement out of a concern over the first ground of Justice Farley’s reasoning. To this end, ISDA sought to intervene in the appeal to address the conflict of law that existed between Ontario and Alberta as a result of Farley J’s decision.

The concern to ISDA and its constituents was the chilling effect this conflict would have on commodity trading. The concern could manifest itself in a likely reduction in credit availability to the derivatives industry, increased capital requirements for some participants (a big concern for the financial institutions trading physical gas), as well as a negative competitive impact in that Canadian counterparties would be less attractive to foreign counterparties whose rights against a Canadian counterparty were unclear at best, and unenforceable at worst.

On February 8, 2005, Justice Feldman directed that the appeal of the Androscoggin Chambers Decision be expedited, that all materials be filed no later than February 11 and that the Alberta Parties’ leave to appeal, ISDA’s leave to intervene, and the actual appeal itself, all be heard before the Court of Appeal on the following Monday, February 14.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision on February 18, 2005. Justice Weiler, speaking for the Court, agreed with Justice Farley’s conclusion, although not his reasoning in reaching that conclusion. Of particular relief to the industry and ISDA, the Court agreed that the Alberta Court of Appeal in Blue Range was correct in not drawing a distinction between physically-settled and financiallysettled transactions as the basis for characterizing EFCs.

However, the Court noted that EFCs must serve a financial purpose unrelated to the physical settlement of the contract – the contract should enable the parties to manage the risk of a commodity by providing for the non-defaulting counterparty to (i) terminate the agreement in the event of a filing for protection, (ii) set off or net its obligations, and (iii) to re-hedge its position. The gas contracts subject to the appeal did not possess these "hallmarks" and were therefore not EFCs. The Court noted that the mere insertion of such provisions did not guarantee that a contract would be considered to be an EFC.

The Court of Appeal also agreed with Mr. Justice Farley that under the terms of the contracts before the Court, the Alberta Parties were not entitled to terminate them in any event.

Analysis Of The Androscoggin Appeal – DEJA "Blue"

Physical vs. Financial

One of the strongest features of the Androscoggin decision was to lay to rest the "physical" versus "financial" debate that had been re-opened when Justice Farley refused to follow the reasoning of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Blue Range.

The premise for excluding physically-settled derivative products seems to focus on the results of a review of the legislative history of EFCs. The principal submissions on the matter were made by the Canadian Bankers Association, who argued that Canada needed to have an analogous provision in its insolvency legislation to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, to permit counterparties to terminate and close out hedging contracts.3 At that time there was no discussion about whether a transaction had to be physically-settled or financiallysettled to qualify. The constituent members of the CBA were (and still are) financial institutions, who aside from involvement in gold and silver trading, were not even involved in physically-settled commodity trading at that time. In addition, the energy trading markets were relatively undeveloped in the early 1990’s and, as a result, its participants did not make any submissions to the Senate Committee. Moreover, an across-the-board interpretation is difficult to justify when other types of eligible financial contracts, such as spot contracts, repurchase contracts and future and forward commodity contracts, must be settled by physical delivery.

Hallmarks of an EFC

We do not believe that the "hallmarks" of an EFC mentioned in the Court of Appeal’s decision are new or even startling. As the Court of Appeal said in Blue Range:

Without enforceable termination and netting out provisions, the insolvent company maintains complete control and may repudiate a contract at any time without notice. Because the non-defaulting party cannot count on performance, it cannot effectively re-hedge its risk by entering into an off-setting contract incorporating similar terms. Given the volatility of the market, the non-defaulting party is exposed to excessive and unmanageable risk.4

The Androscoggin hallmarks are specifically addressed in the Blue Range Appeal Decision. In fact, the Blue Range Appeal Decision set out that physically-settled EFCs must be contracts for fungible commodities which trade in a liquid and volatile market, is based on these hallmarks. The reason that these elements of the test are required is that the solvent counterparty has immediate rights (i.e. termination and netting) to mitigate its damages (by re-hedging its position) by access to a market where the commodities are traded and that determines market value in a reliable fashion.

Finally, the hallmarks suggested by the Androscoggin Appeal Decision are completely consistent with the EFC provisions found in the BIA and the CCAA. The EFC provisions do not bestow any rights upon solvent counterparties — they just prohibit reorganization proceedings from impairing certain rights of the solvent counterparty. But even then, only certain rights of a solvent counterparty are protected, primarily being termination and set-off. If the legislation only protects the right to terminate and net out the resulting obligations, then it goes without saying that a contract would have to have these provisions to be considered an EFC.

The off-set or netting requirement is the most thought provoking of the three hallmarks. Firstly, it seems clear that it must be a provision of the agreement and not something that must, in fact, occur. Surely, for example, a master agreement with only one confirmed transaction would qualify, notwithstanding that there was no other transaction in place at the time upon which that transaction could be off-set. One wonders whether a qualification on the right to net obligations (such as a "flawed asset" or "modified two-way payments" mechanism) could serve to disqualify an agreement from being an eligible financial contract.

This inquiry proceeds on the premise stated early in this commentary that the EFC provisions are designed to balance the competing interests between reorganizing debtors and the certainty of the derivatives market. True to this premise, the theoretical result of a termination by the solvent counterparty’s is a zero sum. In other words, if the contracts were in the money for the debtor (meaning that the spot market price is lower than the contract price), then the debtor would receive payment from the counterparty that would make up for the lower spot price. If the contracts were out of the money, then the debtor would owe an amount but would be able to sell the commodity against the now higher spot market price. In theory, losses should offset gains so the impact to the derivatives market and the reorganizing debtor are mitigated. Where a qualification exists on the ability of the parties to fully net their respective obligations such that a reorganizing debtor would not receive compensation for it in the money positions, this balance is lost.

Indeed, if the out of the money Alberta Parties in Androscoggin had been able to terminate their long term supply contracts, the effect would have been to allow them to recapture value in the spot market. Androscoggin, however, would have seen no corresponding benefit because no amount would have been payable to it. Androscoggin would have needed a specific contractual provision allowing it credit for the gains the Alberta Parties realized when they re-hedged their positions, otherwise, as the party in breach of its agreement, it had no claim against the Alberta Parties.

On the other hand, there is a persuasive argument to be made that such qualifications are merely additional measures that were freely negotiated at the time of entering into the contact. As such they should not, in and of themselves, be sufficient on public policy grounds to disqualify a contract from being found to be an EFC.

Cross Border Comparative

One factor that has remained prevalent in EFC considerations throughout their history is a desire to ensure that the derivatives market in Canada remains competitive in the international market place. Comparing the EFC exemption to the "forward contract" safe-harbour provisions under the US Bankruptcy Code is difficult and beyond the scope of this commentary. It appears, however, that the two systems now take the same initial approach, namely that derivatives settled by physical delivery are eligible for protection as an EFC or a forward contract.5

The U.S. approach appears to go through a second analysis which requires the solvent counterparty to establish itself as a "forward contract merchant". This analysis was discouraged in submissions made to the Court during the Androscoggin appeal on the basis that such an approach lent itself to uncertainty when it came to assessing a counterparty’s intention, particularly where it could change over the course of the contract or where it was in the context of a fully-integrated energy counterparty.

Uniform Canadian Approach

The rift that was created in this area of law by the Androscoggin Chambers Decision had the potential of being materially disruptive to the derivatives market. The approach taken in the Androscoggin Appeal Decision, which adopts the law used in the Province of Alberta, is a positive step for the derivatives industry and will hopefully inspire the same type of growth in the physically-settled derivatives industry since Blue Range.


ISDA was represented at the Androscoggin Appeal by David Mann and Barbara Grossman of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, with assistance from the members of the firm’s Derivatives Practice Group, notably Tom Pepevnak and Bill Jenkins.


1 Re: Blue Range Resource Corp. (2000) 20 CBR (4th) 187 (Alta. C.A.) ("Blue Range Appeal Decision Decision"), reversing Blue Range Resource Corp. (1992) 12 CBR

2 Re: Androscoggin Energy LLC, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Court File #04-CL-5643, dated January 24, 2005 ("Androscoggin Chambers Decision Decision"); affirmed in part by Re: Androscoggin Energy LLC, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Docket M32171 and M32055, dated February 18, 2005 
("Androscoggin Appeal Decision Decision").

3 Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, September 11, 1991, p. 12:7 and 12:28. 

4 Paragraph 28 of the Blue Range Appeal Decision.

5 Williams v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc. (in re Olympic Natural Gas Co.) 294 F.3d 737 (5th Cir.) 2002. 

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
25 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

On Thursday, September 22, 2016, Dentons hosted a panel discussion about the management of liabilities and risks associated with environmental crises, including potential liabilities for directors and officers and provided insight into risk and liability techniques associated with environmental crisis management.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.