Canada: Call On Production Agreement Held Not To Be An "Eligible Financial Contract" Under The CCAA

Re Calpine Canada Energy Limited, 2006 ABQB 153 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench), February 24, 2006

An Alberta judge has ruled that an oil and gas "call on production" (COP) agreement is not an "eligible financial contract" (EFC) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). Madam Justice Romaine of the Court of Queen’s Bench continued a trend established in the Blue Range and Androscoggin decisions by declining to provide a "bright line" test for determining whether physical commodity contracts are EFCs. As she put it:

There may well be criticism of a broad spectrum approach to the determination of whether a contract that is otherwise on a strict interpretation of section 11.1(1) an eligible financial contract is in reality such a contract in character and in the context of the CCAA itself. Such an approach [i.e. the one adopted here] may lead to uncertainty and a greater risk of litigation, at least until a body of case law is established. With respect to such concerns, a simple test that allows the purpose of the CCAA to be undermined with respect to certain types of commodity producers and those who deal with them is not the answer. In the absence of a more refined definition of eligible financial contract, the courts and CCAA parties will have to continue to deal with the difficult nature of the issue.

Market participants may be concerned about the lack of certainty suggested by this analysis, particularly Romaine J.’s emphasis on the "fairness of result" test—which was mentioned in Blue Range but has not previously been so central to a judicial decision in this area of law.

Determining EFC status

The court’s primary focus was on whether the COP Agreement was a commodity forward contract. If it were, it would qualify as an EFC. Naturally the judge closely examined Blue Range and Androscoggin, the two leading cases on physical commodity contracts. Blue Range, also an Alberta case, was welcomed by most market participants because it made it clear that the EFC protections applied to both physically-settled and financial agreements. While it stated that not all contracts for the sale of tangible products should be protected transactions, the Blue Range court held that the relevant factor was whether the contract dealt with a "commodity" in the relatively technical sense of the word. Blue Range defined "commodity" (in this context) as something interchangeable (fungible) that would normally trade on a futures exchange or as the underlying asset in an OTC derivatives transaction. In other words, there has to be an active and "volatile" market that allowed forward commodity contracts to be marked to market and their value determined.

In addition, Blue Range noted that a forward commodity contract typically contains terms particular to, and negotiated by, the parties (as distinct from an exchange-traded contract) and that its terms—including price, delivery and receipt points, and commodity volumes—are precisely defined (e.g. there must be a defined price or pricing mechanism).

In Androscoggin, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that physical commodity contracts could be EFCs, but stressed the presence of termination and netting rights as primary indicators of whether the parties had a "financial purpose" in entering into the transaction.

While citing both of these appellate level decisions with approval, Romaine J. may have added an additional degree of uncertainty here by emphasizing the fairness of result test more than they had.

Why the COP Agreement wasn’t an EFC

The COP Agreement was an ancillary agreement that had been negotiated and entered into when Calpine sold certain oil and gas rights to Pengrowth. As described by the court, it provided Calpine:

…with a reoccurring right of first refusal to purchase any portion of the gas or oil produced from the lands that were sold on market terms and conditions. The agreement remains in force for as long as gas and oil are produced from the lands, unless terminated sooner by the parties. It provides for a fixed delivery point and a price for the production spelled out by reference to current market prices. It does not compel Pengrowth to produce gas or oil from the lands.

The benefit to Calpine of the agreement was that prices were determined net of tolls and consequently there was what the court referred to as a "toll" kicker. Romaine J. held that the COP Agreement was not a forward commodity contract, and therefore not an EFC, because it lacked too many of the key indicia of an EFC:

  • The pricing, duration, contract quantity and delivery terms were too uncertain (pricing was calculated on the basis of market price, the term of the contract was uncertain, and Pengrowth was not required to produce anything);
  • Because the pricing was not predetermined, the COP Agreement could not be marked to market (thus lacking another important indicator that a contract is an EFC);
  • There were no netting provisions (Romaine J. stressed that netting rights are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions of an EFC but added nevertheless that the significant of their presence "cannot be overemphasized");
  • The lack of any offsetting hedging transactions entered into by Pengrowth was in the court’s view evidence that this was not the "type of contract that is part of the forward contract trade"; and
  • The fact that the COP Agreement was part and parcel of the original sale transaction and gave Calpine a "toll kicker" made it clear that it was not simply a stand-alone gas supply contract. It was burdensome to Pengrowth and beneficial to Calpine because of the toll kicker, not the fixing of any price.

Alternatively, Pengrowth argued that the transaction was a series of spot contracts. While spot agreements are listed as EFCs in s. 11.1 of the CCAA, Romaine J. insisted that the underlying purpose of the CCAA suggests that only some fall into that category—as she noted, many spot contracts have no "financial character" at all. Since spot contracts provide only for immediate physical delivery, they were unlikely to be too important in the context of the CCAA.

(The court did not consider whether the contract was a commodity option at the spot price which is a more accurate characterization than either a forward or spot contract.)

She added that the presence in the COP of a "termination upon insolvency" provision was not sufficient to elevate it into an EFC even though the absence of a similar provision had been one of the reasons for the adverse ruling in Androscoggin.

As noted above, however, it is Romaine J.’s use of the fairness of result test may be the most significant aspect of the ruling from the market participant perspective. She held that if Pengrowth were to terminate, it would benefit by being able to sell the gas without restriction, while Calpine would lose a valuable contract (because of the toll kicker presumably) without compensation, as well as a relatively secure supply of gas at market price. Continuing to stay the termination, on the other hand, would leave Pengrowth in the same position as other suppliers to goods and services to Calpine—something she considered "fair" but which might not seem that way to parties that have entered into similar agreements in the belief that they include termination rights.

Distinguishing this decision

Madam Justice Romaine’s emphasis on the fairness of result test is certainly not helpful to market participants in search of certainty. Fortunately, however, there are a hundred ways to Sunday to distinguish the COP Agreement in issue in this case from the typical gas forward or option. The fact that it was tied to the initial land sale agreement, that it included a "toll kicker", that it did not provide for the purchaser specific quantities of gas, that it was not documented under an industry standard master agreement, and that the parties were producer and end-user (not their risk management subsidiaries) were all important to the analysis. Also, this contract dealt with gas extracted from a particular parcel of land. If a financial institution or other market intermediary entered into a physical gas purchase contract or option for a fixed quantity of a gas whether at a spot or fixed price pursuant to an agreement such as a Gas EDI or ISDA master agreement, a court should characterize it as an EFC. Given the court’s comments regarding fairness, the presence of an ISDA Second Method type of calculation on termination would support the EFC characterization as well.

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.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
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