1. 1
US decision rattles pipeline owners
Midstream companies advised to review pipeline contracts after
bankruptcy ruling
May 11, 2016 by Julius Melnitzer Lexpert Magazine May 2016 Issue
Shutterstock
A US bankruptcy judge’s ruling that midstream gatherer contracts can be rejected in insolvency cases
sounds a warning note for Canadian owners of pipelines and other midstream assets.
“We’re already seeing a chilling effect because this decision, if followed in Canada, represents a new
threat to midstream stakeholders that didn’t exist before,” says Randal Van de Mosselaer of Norton Rose
Fulbright Canada LLP in Calgary.
So much so that Torys LLP is advising both midstream gatherers and producers to review their contracts.
“Midstream companies should review pipeline contracts to evaluate the risk of rejection in the event of a
bankruptcy by the upstream producers,” says Alison Bauer, who practises at the firm’s New York office.
“Conversely, oil and gas producers should consider negotiating reductions in price and volume
commitment in unfavourable contracts that originated when oil and gas prices were higher — or threaten
bankruptcy rejection.”
The issue arose when Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation, an independent energy company engaged in
developing onshore oil and natural gas properties, found itself in Chapter 11 proceedings. Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to apply for court approval to terminate existing
agreements in certain circumstances. Similar provisions are found in Canada’s Companies’ Creditors
Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
Sabine applied to terminate gas gathering and handling agreements it had with Nordheim Eagle Ford
Gathering LLC and High Point Infrastructure Partners LLC. Sabine maintained that it could not restructure
its operations without rejecting these contracts, which it claimed were too expensive to maintain.
The pipeline owners countered with the argument that the dedication of production under the agreements
created an interest that ran with the land and therefore the contract could not be rejected under the
applicable Texas law.

2. 2CAN_DMS: 1025294731
But Judge Shelley Chapman of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
ruled that the agreements could be rejected as a reasonable exercise of business judgment by Sabine’s
management. While she did not – for procedural reasons – make a final ruling on the issue, she did
indicate that she was disinclined to find that the agreements ran with the land. Among other things, she
reasoned that the agreements only affected Sabine’s personal property interests in products that had
already been extracted.
As it turns out, a bankruptcy court in Delaware is poised to render a decision relating to a substantially
similar issue in a case involving Quicksilver Resources.
“Meanwhile, the important legal question of whether gathering contracts run with the land remain to be
determined in both the US and Canada,” Van de Mosselaer says. “It’s also unclear whether a finding that
an interest in land was created would mean that the contracts could be rejected but the particular
covenants running with the land would survive.”
In another Delaware case, the issue is whether individual transaction confirmations can be severed and
rejected as distinct from the umbrella gathering agreement.
“But regardless of the way in which the midstream companies are defending these applications, they are
the ones who stand to lose when these types of agreements are rejected, missing out on the benefit of
their bargain in the agreements as well as failing to recover the costs for their own often substantial
infrastructure development,” Bauer says.
A decision from US courts would not, of course, be binding in Canada. But Canadian courts will take
notice.
“Given the importance that is placed on the decisions of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York in both the United States and Canada, any ruling Judge Chapman makes
on this issue may well be influential in the mid-stream industries in both countries,” Van de Mosselaer
says.
Still, the CCCA does require courts that are deciding whether to reject contracts to consider whether the
disclaimer would create serious financial hardship to the debtor’s counterparty.
“That doesn’t appear to have been a consideration in Sabine, but it would be the primary argument in
Canada,” Van de Mosselaer says.
This being said, it is also true that the land titles and real estate legal regimes vary greatly from state to
state and province to province in both countries.
“No doubt the real estate law of each jurisdiction will bear heavily on these questions,” Van de Mosselaer
adds.