LexisNexis A.S. Pratt OCTOBER 2018

Transcription

1 LexisNexis A.S. Pratt OCTOBER 2018 Editor s NotE: decisions, decisions Victoria Prussen Spears seventh CirCUit ENCoUrAGEs GAMEsMANsHiP in debt disputes Ryan M. Holz and Douglas R. Sargent NOBLE ENERGY INC. v. CONOCOPHILLIPS AND UNDISCLOSED EXECUtorY CONTRACTS David Riley and Eric Goldberg FirstENErGY solutions: ohio BANKrUPtCY CoUrt FiNds that it, Not FErC, HAs JUrisdiCtioN on rejection of PoWEr CoNtrACts James Copeland YoU GEt WHAt YoU GEt ANd YoU don t GEt UPsEt: delaware BANKrUPtCY CoUrt ENForCEs ANti-AssiGNMENt CLAUsE Fredric Sosnick, Joel Moss, Solomon J. Noh, and Ned S. Schodek odebrecht oil & GAs ANd the UsE of BrAZiLiAN EXtrAJUdiCiAL reorganization in Cross-BordEr restructurings Jonathan Mendes de Oliveira in the CoUrts Ronit J. Berkovich, David Griffiths, Matthew Goren, Moshe A. Fink, Lisa Lansio, David Li, and Leonard Yoo

2 Pratt s Journal of Bankruptcy Law VOLUME 14 NUMBER 7 OCTOBER 2018 Editor s Note: Decisions, Decisions... Victoria Prussen Spears 307 Seventh Circuit Encourages Gamesmanship in Debt Disputes Ryan M. Holz and Douglas R. Sargent 309 Noble Energy Inc. v. ConocoPhillips and Undisclosed Executory Contracts David Riley and Eric Goldberg 314 FirstEnergy Solutions: Ohio Bankruptcy Court Finds That It, Not FERC, Has Jurisdiction on Rejection of Power Contracts James Copeland 318 You Get What You Get and You Don t Get Upset: Delaware Bankruptcy Court Enforces Anti-Assignment Clause Fredric Sosnick, Joel Moss, Solomon J. Noh, and Ned S. Schodek 325 Odebrecht Oil & Gas and the Use of Brazilian Extrajudicial Reorganization in Cross-Border Restructurings Jonathan Mendes de Oliveira 328 IN THE COURTS Ronit J. Berkovich, David Griffiths, Matthew Goren, Moshe A. Fink, Lisa Lansio, David Li, and Leonard Yoo 339

3 QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION? For questions about the Editorial Content appearing in these volumes or reprint permission, please call: Kent K. B. Hanson, J.D., at Outside the United States and Canada, please call (973) For assistance with replacement pages, shipments, billing or other customer service matters, please call: Customer Services Department at (800) Outside the United States and Canada, please call (518) Fax Number (800) Customer Service Website For information on other Matthew Bender publications, please call Your account manager or (800) Outside the United States and Canada, please call (937) Library of Congress Card Number: ISBN: (print) ISBN: (ebook) ISSN: Cite this publication as: [author name], [article title], [vol. no.] PRATT S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW [page number] ([year]) Example: Patrick E. Mears, The Winds of Change Intensify over Europe: Recent European Union Actions Firmly Embrace the Rescue and Recovery Culture for Business Recovery, 10 PRATT S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW 349 (2014) This publication is designed to provide authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. LexisNexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under license. Matthew Bender and the Matthew Bender Flame Design are registered trademarks of Matthew Bender Properties Inc. Editorial Office 230 Park Ave., 7th Floor, New York, NY (800) (2018 Pub.4789)

4 Editor-in-Chief, Editor & Board of Editors EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEVEN A. MEYEROWITZ President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. EDITOR VICTORIA PRUSSEN SPEARS Senior Vice President, Meyerowitz Communications Inc. BOARD OF EDITORS SCOTT L. BAENA Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP LESLIE A. BERKOFF Moritt Hock & Hamroff LLP TED A. BERKOWITZ Farrell Fritz, P.C. ANDREW P. BROZMAN Clifford Chance US LLP MICHAEL L. COOK Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP MARK G. DOUGLAS Jones Day MARK J. FRIEDMAN DLA Piper STUART I. GORDON Rivkin Radler LLP PATRICK E. MEARS Barnes & Thornburg LLP iii

5 PRATT S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW is published eight times a year by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Copyright 2018 Reed Elsevier Properties SA., used under license by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form by microfilm, xerography, or otherwise or incorporated into any information retrieval system without the written permission of the copyright owner. For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from Pratt s Journal of Bankruptcy Law, please access or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For subscription information and customer service, call Direct any editorial inquires and send any material for publication to Steven A. Meyerowitz, Editor-in-Chief, Meyerowitz Communications Inc., Grand Central Parkway, No. 18R, Floral Park, NY 11005, smeyerowitz@meyerowitzcommunications.com, Material for publication is welcomed articles, decisions, or other items of interest to bankers, officers of financial institutions, and their attorneys. This publication is designed to be accurate and authoritative, but neither the publisher nor the authors are rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services in this publication. If legal or other expert advice is desired, retain the services of an appropriate professional. The articles and columns reflect only the present considerations and views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated, any of the former or present clients of the authors or their firms or organizations, or the editors or publisher. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Pratt s Journal of Bankruptcy Law, LexisNexis Matthew Bender, Attn: Customer Service, 9443 Springboro Pike, Miamisburg, OH iv

6 Noble Energy Inc. v. ConocoPhillips and Undisclosed Executory Contracts By David Riley and Eric Goldberg * The authors of this article argue that the Noble Energy Inc. v. ConocoPhillips decision, now the subject of a petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court, should be reversed. Twenty years after Noble Energy, Inc., acquired assets from the bankruptcy estate of Alma Energy Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. asserted a $63 million claim against Noble regarding the acquisition. Conoco s claim was based on the indemnity provisions of an old agreement between Conoco and Alma that had never been disclosed by Alma, but which the Texas Supreme Court held had been assumed and assigned to Noble as part of the sale pursuant to a boilerplate provision in Alma s Chapter 11 plan. 1 This article argues that this decision, now the subject of a petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court, should be reversed. BANKRUPTCY COURTS GENERALLY DO NOT PERMIT ASSUMPTION AND ASSIGNMENT OF UNDISCLOSED EXECUTORY CONTRACTS WITHOUT FULL DISCLOSURE Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may not assign an executory contract unless it first assumes the agreement; cures all defaults; provides adequate assurance of the assignee s future performance; and the bankruptcy court approves the assumption and assignment. 2 Underlying this analysis is the requirement that a debtor in bankruptcy disclose all of its assets and liabilities during the bankruptcy case. 3 Without disclosure of an executory contract during a bankruptcy case, a bankruptcy court cannot analyze whether assumption and assignment of the contract is appropriate. 4 By way of example * David Riley is an associate at DLA Piper focusing his practice in the area of restructuring. Eric Goldberg is a partner at the firm representing debtors both in and out of court, as well as creditors and other stakeholders, including lenders and funds, in a variety of transactions. The authors may be reached at david.riley@dlapiper.com and eric.goldberg@dlapiper.com, respectively. 1 Noble Energy, Inc. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 532 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. 2017) U.S.C. 365(a), (b), (f)(2) U.S.C See Noble, 532 S.W.3d at 789 ( Alma s failure to disclose the Exchange Agreement factors into the ultimate question of whether Alma assumed and assigned it in accordance with section 365 s requirements. ) (Johnson, J., dissenting). 314

7 UNDISCLOSED EXECUTORY CONTRACTS (cited heavily by the parties and the Texas Supreme Court in Noble), in In re O Connor, 5 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered whether a partnership agreement had been assumed pursuant to boilerplate language in a plan where [n]either the Disclosure Statement nor the Plan made any specific reference to the agreement. The plan in O Connor simply provided that all executory contracts... not rejected... will be assumed. 6 The Fifth Circuit, deferring to the bankruptcy court s interpretation of the plan, concluded that such an undisclosed executory contract may not be assumed either by implication or through the use of boilerplate plan language. 7 In O Connor, the Fifth Circuit ultimately held that the partnership agreement at issue was not assumable, but this did not render the court s analysis regarding undisclosed executory contracts mere dicta. TEXAS SUPREME COURT S VIEW IN NOBLE In 1999, Noble purchased certain assets of Alma Energy through Alma s Chapter 11 case. Almost 20 years later, the Texas Supreme Court, in a divided opinion, held that Noble owes a third party, Conoco, $63 million based on an indemnification provision in an exchange agreement that was assumed and assigned to Noble through a boilerplate assumed-unless-rejected provision in Alma s Chapter 11 plan without any specific disclosure. Noble recently filed a petition for certiorari, requesting review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Texas Supreme Court s view, the actual holdings in O Connor were that the partnership agreement was not an assumable executory contract and that the bankruptcy court s interpretation of the plan s literal language was entitled to deference. 8 O Connor s statement of bankruptcy law is widely accepted, but the Texas Supreme Court s narrow view of the O Connor holding is wrong. In Noble, the Texas Supreme Court analyzed a number of cases upholding catch-all rejection provisions (as distinguished from assumption and assignment provisions) in cases where there was disclosure during the bankruptcy cases of an executory contract during the bankruptcy case to satisfy due process concerns. 9 These conclusions are unremarkable. In sum, the Texas Supreme Court in Noble had no difficulty applying Alma s catch-all assumption and F.3d 392, 401 (5th Cir. 2001). 6 Id. 7 Id. (emphasis added) (collecting cases). 8 Noble, 532 S.W.3d at Id. at

8 PRATT S JOURNAL OF BANKRUPTCY LAW assignment provision to the exchange agreement because, it concluded, Noble had constructive knowledge of the exchange agreement, even though Alma had not disclosed it during its bankruptcy cases. 10 Even if Noble had constructive knowledge of the exchange agreement, constructive knowledge of the existence of an executory contract does not absolve the debtor of its general disclosure obligations. 11 Without complete disclosure in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy court cannot make the necessary findings under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(b) to authorize assumption and assignment. Under the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules, the debtor is responsible for making complete disclosure of assets and liabilities, and if appropriate, for making the requisite showing for assumption and assignment; the Noble decision flips that disclosure burden to the court and other constituencies. 12 DISCLOSURE IS ESSENTIAL IN BANKRUPTCY In our view, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant certiorari and reverse the Texas Supreme Court s decision. Disclosure is essential as a matter of practice and required as a matter of federal bankruptcy law. Bankruptcy Code Section 365(b) requires adjudication of a number of factors (i.e., cure amounts, adequate assurance of future performance) before assumption and assignment can be approved. If there is no disclosure of an executory contract, these statutory predicates cannot have been satisfied. The Texas Supreme Court s decision in Noble undercuts the Bankruptcy Code s disclosure requirements and is contrary to the mandates under Section 365. Under Noble, gamesmanship in disclosure may run rampant parties are incentivized to disclose as little as possible, so as to reap the benefits if a party misses some material non-disclosure. 13 Both Alma and Conoco were aware of the exchange agreement and its material terms, including the indemnity provisions, yet neither listed it in 10 Id. at Bankruptcy Code Section 521 requires a debtor to disclose all assets and liabilities, including a list of all executory contracts. 12 See Noble, 532 S.W. 3d at 787 ( [B]ankruptcy courts have firmly put both the obligation of full disclosure and the risks of non-disclosure on the debtor. ) (Johnson, J., dissenting). 13 See 532 S.W. 3d at 787 ( Conoco benefits by having a claim against Noble instead of the reorganized Alma, and the reorganized Alma benefits by escaping liability for bankrupt Alma s failure to comply with bankruptcy law by not disclosing an executory contract. ). 316

9 UNDISCLOSED EXECUTORY CONTRACTS definitive sale documentation with Noble, and Alma did not include it in its schedules, disclosure statement or plan. Even though there were references to the exchange agreement in leases that were assumed by Alma and assigned to Noble, providing Noble with constructive knowledge of the exchange agreement, as the Texas Supreme Court concluded, this is neither the standard nor sufficient under bankruptcy practice: [H]ow [could] the bankruptcy court... have approved the assumption as required by section 365 when the contract s existence was known only to Alma and Conoco and undisclosed by either of them in the bankruptcy to other parties, the trustee, or the court? 14 Simply put, it could not have. Nothing in this article should suggest that boilerplate or catchall provisions should not generally be binding they are essential parts of Chapter 11 practice and are often reiterated in confirmation orders and given the force of a court order. However, boilerplate and catchall provisions should be limited, at the very least, by a debtor s required disclosures. Without disclosure, a bankruptcy court cannot have made the findings required to allow for assumption and assignment. Had Alma (or even Conoco) disclosed the exchange agreement in Alma s bankruptcy case, perhaps Noble should have borne the burdens associated with its assumption and assignment. CONCLUSION Given the Texas Supreme Court s deviation from established federal bankruptcy law, and the risks of gamesmanship Noble creates with the key concept of disclosure in bankruptcy practice, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant certiorari and reverse the Texas Supreme Court s decision. Disclosure is essential in bankruptcy, and all stakeholders are entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of the debtor s disclosures. Debtors (and counterparties) should not benefit from their non-disclosure of information within their knowledge. 14 Id. 317