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
17 Oct 2018, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

Dentons and SheEO are coming together for an evening of #radicalgenerosity on October 17, 2018. Meet Vicki Saunders, Founder of SheEO, and learn about how SheEO is changing the landscape for female entrepreneurs.

17 Oct 2018, Webinar, Toronto, Canada

With the continued focus on Bill 148’s significant changes to the Employment Standards Act, Dentons’ Toronto Employment and Labour group is pleased to launch a new webinar series focusing on Bill 148.

17 Oct 2018, Seminar, Québec, Canada

Dentons is pleased to invite you to join us for a breakfast seminar as part of the Les Matinées Dentons series on issues relevant to you and your business.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions