Thursday, March 10, 2016

Pipeline investors shaken by bankruptcy ruling

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e66672c6-e575-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39.html#axzz42X8aBmBT

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e66672c6-e575-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39.html#ixzz42XELz6bG
A judge has allowed a US oil and gas company to abandon pipeline contracts while in bankruptcy, in a first-of-its-kind decision that has rattled investors in energy infrastructure.
Sabine Oil & Gas, a shale energy producer under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, sought permission to break contracts with two pipeline companies so it could pursue better deals and save as much as $115m.

FirstFT is our new essential daily email briefing of the best stories from across the web
On Tuesday a judge ruled in its favour. “The court defers to the business judgment of the debtors to reject the agreements,” Judge Shelley Chapman said at a hearing in US bankruptcy court in Manhattan.
The decision has important implications for the midstream energy sector, which gathers, processes, transports and stores oil and gas. Income-hungry investors had flocked to midstream companies on the belief that their generous payouts were backed by long-term, immutable contracts with customers.
As they suffer low gas and oil prices, bankrupt producers are challenging these contracts in court. Some midstream companies have warned of “counterparty risk” in reference to their less creditworthy customers.
After the ruling, investors dumped shares and units of pipeline companies and partnerships, with Kinder Morgan down 5.3 per cent, Plains All American off 5.9 per cent and Williams Companies dropping 9.4 per cent.
However, it would be hard to draw broad precedents from any single case, lawyers and analysts said.
“While this is an important decision, it’s one of those decisions that is state specific, fact specific and play specific,” said David Karp, partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel, a law firm, who is not involved with the case. “There are many other agreements out there that this decision will not cover.”

Goldman says commodity rally unlikely to last

The most influential bank in commodity markets believes the recent rally is unlikely to last and prices will reverse unless there is a sustained improvement in demand led by China, the world’s biggest consumer of raw material
Lawyers for Sabine had argued in a court filing that one of the pipeline companies was “searching for a loophole to allow midstream gatherers, unlike all other participants in the oil and gas industry, to become immune to industry-wide credit risk under the conditions that have led to this and other oil and gas bankruptcies.”
Haynes and Boone, a law firm, said 48 North American oil and gas producers filed for bankruptcy in 2015 and more will follow this year.
In a case in Delaware bankruptcy court, producer Quicksilver Resources has sought to reject gas-gathering contracts with Crestwood Midstream Partners. Two trade groups have intervened, warning that a ruling in Quicksilver’s favour could disrupt the midstream industry.
Sabine filed for bankruptcy protection last July with $2.9bn in debt. In September it filed a motion to reject gathering contracts with the two companies, calling them “unnecessarily burdensome” as it seeks to reorganise.
Two of the contracts committed Sabine to deliver Texas gas and condensate to a unit of New York-listed Cheniere Energy or pay a penalty. The contracts, signed months before the oil market crash in January 2014, were supposed to last a decade. Cheniere had no immediate comment.
Sabine now seeks to use a different gatherer that will not demand minimum volumes, according to a court filing. The pipeline companies have objected, arguing that the contracts “run with the land” that Sabine has been drilling and cannot be torn up in bankruptcy.
Judge Chapman disagreed, but issued a non-binding ruling on that question for procedural reasons.
Robert Burns, a lawyer at Bracewell who represents the Cheniere subsidiary, acknowledged efforts were under way to resolve the dispute through commercial avenues. “A redoubling of those efforts is in order,” he told the judge.

No comments: