Canada: In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. – Bankruptcy And The Rejection Of Pipeline Contracts

A recent decision made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court ("the Court") has the potential for widespread ramifications in the North American midstream sector. On March 8, 2016, the Court controversially ruled that Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. ("Sabine"), a Houston-based oil and gas exploration and production company, was permitted to withdraw from its long-term pipeline agreements with two midstream companies.1 While the decision comes from the influential U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, the Court clarified that Texas law was not clear enough for her decision to be binding, which was instead meant to offer a "non-binding" analysis.2

Background

Sabine filed for Chapter 11 protection on July 15, 2015, in order to facilitate the restructuring of its nearly $3 billion debt. Shortly thereafter, in September of 2015, Sabine filed a motion to reject two gathering and handling agreements with each of Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC ("Nordheim") and HPIP Gonzales Holdings LLC ("HPIP").

The two agreements with Nordheim specifically provided that the agreement itself is a "covenant running with the [land]" within the designated area.3 Similarly, each of the two agreements with HPIP provided that Sabine's undertaking to deliver the products to HPIP is a covenant "running with the lands and leaseholds interests" identified in the agreement.4

The Motion

The Court heard oral arguments on February 2, 2016, where it considered whether Sabine had exercised reasonable business judgment in its rejection of the agreements, and whether the covenants did in fact run with the land as expressly indicated in all four agreements.

Sabine's lawyers argued that potentially $115 million could be saved by repudiating the contracts with Nordheim and HPIP, referring to the agreements as "unnecessarily burdensome".

The midstream companies naturally rejected Sabine's argument, largely on the basis that the contracts in question gave them certain rights to the land. While bankruptcy law usually permits the bankrupt to sever some agreements, Nordheim and HPIP argued that their agreements with Sabine were unique. HPIP claimed that its contract included certain covenants "attaching to and running with the lands", which continued to be binding on Sabine and any successor. Similarly, Nordheim objected on the grounds that Sabine's right to transport gas on particular lands was transferred to Nordheim. Sabine's relied on the language of its contracts to counter-argue, claiming that ownership rights were never transferred, and if they were, only rights pertaining to minerals – not land – were transferred.

The Law and the Decision

Pursuant to Section 365(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is permitted to reject executory contracts or unexpired leases with the approval of the court.5 Bankruptcy courts have allowed such rejection, so long as it constitutes an exercise of "sound business judgment". Typically, U.S. courts have been quite liberal in determining whether a debtor should be entitled to reject a contract, absent any indication of bad faith, whim or caprice.6 The test requires the court to look at whether the debtor's decision to reject the contract in question is beneficial to the estate.7

Sabine argued that its rejection of the agreements was reasonable because it was not "financially viable" for it to deliver on the obligations under the contracts. Furthermore, absent rejection, Sabine would be required to make contractual deficiency payments, which would impose a substantial drain on the estate's resources. Sabine argued that if it were permitted to reject the existing contracts, it would enter into new gathering agreements with other midstream companies on more favourable terms. The Court agreed with the foregoing and ultimately concluded that Sabine had in fact satisfied the standard for rejection of the contracts. It ruled that Sabine's decision to reject the agreements was a "reasonable exercise of [Sabine's] business judgment".8

While the Court concluded it was able to rule on Sabine's act of rejecting the contracts, it clarified that it could not "decide substantive legal issues, including whether the covenants at issue run with the land, in the context of a motion to reject, unless such motion is scheduled simultaneously with an adversary proceeding . . . to determine the merits of the substantive legal disputes . . ."9.

Nonetheless, the Court provided a "non-binding" analysis of whether the covenants ran with the land, noting this was a question of Texas state law. Under Texas law, a covenant runs with land when:

  • it touches and concerns the land;
  • it relates to a thing in existence or specifically binds the parties and their assigns;
  • it is intended by the original parties to run with the land; and
  • the successor to the burden has notice.10

The Court ruled that the first requirement was not satisfied, as the covenants did not appear to "touch and concern" the land. It was insufficient for the covenant to merely affect the value of the land. Rather, the covenant must affect the owner's interest in the property or its use. In the case of gathering and handling agreements, the minerals, once extracted from the ground, cease to be real property and become personal property. Accordingly, the covenants in this case failed the test, and were determined not to run with the land, allowing Sabine to reject the agreements like any other contract under Section 365(a).

In concluding, the Court made no final determination as to whether the covenants in question ran with the land, or as to any other substantive legal dispute save for allowing rejection of the contracts. Commentators have noted that this conclusion likely leaves the case open to further litigation between the parties for definitive direction.

Application in Canada

Prior to the 2009 amendments to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act11 (the "CCAA"), the ability of a debtor to disclaim a contract was entirely within the discretion of the court. Section 32(1) of the CCAA now allows a debtor company, on notice to the other parties to the agreement and to the monitor, to disclaim or resiliate any agreement to which it was a party at the commencement of the CCAA proceeding. The bankruptcy monitor must approve the disclaimer, failing which, the debtor must obtain a court order for the disclaimer or resiliation. In deciding whether to make the order, the court must consider whether the monitor approved the proposed disclaimer or resiliation; whether it would enhance the prospects of a viable compromise or arrangement; and whether the disclaimer or resiliation would likely cause significant financial hardship to a party to the agreement.12

Certain categories of agreements are exempt from the foregoing provisions. In particular, all of the following are exempt from section 32(1)13 - that is, they cannot be disclaimed: (i) eligible financial contracts, (ii) collective agreements, (iii) financing agreements if the company is the borrower, and (iv) leases of real property or of an immovable if the company is the lessor. While intellectual property agreements where the company is the grantor of rights can be disclaimed, the grantee's right to use the intellectual property is not affected by the disclaimer.14 Notably absent from this list is any category under which midstream contracts might fit.14 Accordingly, such contracts are vulnerable to the risk of disclaimer and resiliation in the same way they are in the U.S.

The "test" that courts have adopted is the demonstration by the debtor company that the termination was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.15 Accordingly, the analysis is case-specific and will depend on each debtor's set of facts. Courts have, however, considered authorizing termination where a company would become substantially more profitable by terminating an agreement and entering into a new one on more favourable terms permitted by the market.16 As such, the possibility of a Canadian court arriving at a result similar to Sabine is not only possible, but likely. While obviously entitled to stray from U.S. jurisprudence, it would not be surprising for a Canadian court to borrow principles from Sabine given the similarities in law. Regardless, the CCAA is designed to be debtor-friendly, and as such, a Canadian court could very well arrive at the same result as Sabine without specifically borrowing from it. Canadian midstream companies should be cognizant of the risk to midstream contracts under the CCAA and Sabine, and consider the possibility of struggling upstream counterparts disclaiming or repudiating existing pipeline contracts.

Impact and Further Developments

The ability to disclaim or repudiate a contract serves a useful purpose to upstream debtor corporations, in that it may withdraw from unprofitable or prejudicial contractual obligations. However, the Sabine decision sets a troublesome precedent for pipeline operators and the midstream sector generally, in both the United States and Canada. As counterparties to those contracts, the decision is likely to create uncertainty and instability for midstream companies, otherwise beloved to investors for secure and steady streams of revenue.

Given the current state of the market, the ability to repudiate or disclaim pipeline agreements may become a persuasive factor in a producer's decision whether or not to pursue Chapter 11 filing or restructuring under the CCAA. Producers who previously avoided the insolvency route may go so far as to file for bankruptcy protection simply to be liberated from unfavourable pipeline contracts. By the same token, midstream companies may see the incentive to renegotiate or amend existing contracts with producers to ensure their continuation. Midstream companies should be advised to review their agreements with upstream counterparties to assess whether any rejection risks exist, and accordingly, whether renegotiation should be considered.

While not binding, the Court's decision has already made waves in the industry. The decision provides some welcome guidance for courts considering similar cases. However, it is certainly less than precedential, and courts will continue to consider the issue on a case- and contract-specific basis. Although we have yet to see a similar case decided or initiated in Canada, other U.S. producers have already filed motions similar to Sabine's. Quicksilver Resources Inc. ("Quicksilver") filed an application in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court to reject a contract with Crestwood Equity Partners. However, on April 6, 2016, the parties announced they had reached a new 10-year deal, in connection with which Quicksilver withdrew its motion.

Similar to Sabine, another producer, Magnum Hunter Resources Corp. ("Magnum"), sought to reject four agreements with Texas Gas Transmission Inc. ("Texas Gas"), calling them an "undue burden" on its operations. It was announced on March 10, 2016 that Magnum reached an agreement in Delaware bankruptcy court with Texas Gas, resolving the latter's objections to the termination of certain pipeline contracts. The agreement, which is expected to receive approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, provides that Magnum subsidiary Triad Hunter will terminate the four agreements with Texas Gas relating to the use of pipelines to transport gas. A separate credit agreement, pursuant to which Magnum agreed to provide a number of letters of credit to Texas Gas totalling $65 million, will be converted into an unsecured claim worth $15 million in Magnum's Chapter 11 proceedings.

Footnotes

1. In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., 15-11835, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) ("Sabine")

2. Sabine at p. 8-9

3. Sabine at p. 5

4. Ibid.

5. 11 U.S.C. §365(a)

6. Westbury Real Estate Ventures v. Bradlees, Inc. (In re Bradlees Stores, Inc.), 194 B.R. 555, 558 n.1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996).

7. In re Enron Corp., No. 01-16034 (AJG), 2006 WL 898033, at *4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2006).

8. Sabine at p. 20

9. Sabine at p. 9

10. Inwood North Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Harris, 736 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex. 1987).

11. RSC 1985, c. C-36 [CCAA]

12. CCAA, s. 32(4)

13. CCAA, s. 32(6)

14. CCAA, s. 32(9)

14. Note: There is no bright-line test for whether an agreement constitutes an "eligible financial contract"; however, the Ontario Court of Appeal has held that a contract which has as its primary thrust the physical supply and transmission of oil and gas is not an "eligible financial contract" for the purposes of the CCAA (Re Androscoggin Energy LLC, [2005] OJ No. 592, 75 OR (3d) 552)

15. Re Skeena Cellulose Inc., 2003 BCCA 344

16. Re Doman Industries Ltd., 2004 BCSC at paras 35-36

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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