Canadian Lawyer InHouse

13 CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/INHOUSE MARCH/APRIL 2019 Risk Management Tom Cumming and Caireen E. Hanert Redwater Ruling's implications for oil and gas lending Decision could have real economic consequences O n Jan. 31, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Limited, the closely watched appeal of the Alberta Energy Regulator and Orphan Well Asso- ciation. The decision profoundly changes the treatment of environmental obligations in insolvencies and may impact the availability of capital to the natural resources sector and the functioning of the insolvency system. Redwater Energy Corp. was an insolvent oil and gas company whose environmental obligations exceeded the value of its assets. Its receiver and trustee, Grant Thornton Limited, disclaimed the unsellable wells under s. 14.06 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Alberta's oil and gas regulatory laws deemed GTL to be a licensee, required GTL to perform Redwater's environmental remediation obligations, did not permit GTL to disclaim licensed assets and empowered the AER to condition licence transfers on the performance of those obligations. The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the AER's appeal and made the following key fi ndings: a) Under s. 14.06(4), disclaimers only protect receivers from personal liability. Receivers must still remedi- ate property after its disclaimer and cannot make distributions to creditors until the remediation work is complete. b) Regulatory obligations are only subject to BIA pri- orities where: 1) the regulator is not acting in the public interest and for the public good; 2) the regu- lator is seeking a fi nancial benefi t or engaging in a colourable attempt to recover debt; and 3) there is suffi cient certainty that the regulator will perform the work and fi le a claim for its costs. c) Provincial law that requires the performance of envi- ronmental obligations before distributions are made does not disrupt the BIA's priority regime. The decision gives rise to a number of questions and issues relating to the provision of credit to the oil and gas sector: 1. Super-priority for regulatory obligations. Regula- tory obligations will generally not be characterized as monetary claims payable in accordance with BIA priorities. For all practical purposes, they are now treated as super-priority claims that must be paid or performed before distributions are made to creditors. 2. Quantifi cation of environmental obligations. It is unclear how lenders and receivers will be able to quantify regulatory obligations. The AER's deemed liability calculations may understate the actual reme- diation obligations and, therefore, the due diligence requirements for lending and enforcement may now be signifi cantly greater. 3. Loan value redeterminations. As lenders calculate borrowing limits for the purposes of renewals and new loans, their calculations will likely account, on some basis, for the present value of the super-priority environmental remediation obligations. In many cir- cumstances, there will be reduced loan availability that could impact the operations and capital pro- grams of producers and their servicers. 4. Are receivership costs paid before environmental obli- gations? While the majority did not indicate how the fees and costs of receivers are paid, implicitly, receiv- ers are paid before remediation obligations because they are expected to perform the remediation work. 5. Is there a point to a disclaimer? Because disclaimers appear to provide no additional protection from per- sonal liability and receivers remain obliged to reme- diate disclaimed property, it appears that there may only be limited benefi t to disclaiming. 6. Chilling effect on insolvencies? If remediation ob- ligations exceed the value of the estate, it is unclear why lenders would provide additional loans or initi- ate insolvency proceedings without prior arrange- ments with the AER being made. 7. Protection of court offi cers. Provincial law that makes receivers personally liable for environmen- tal obligations is likely inoperative under the para- mountcy doctrine. The decision could have real economic consequenc- es if there is a signifi cant reduction in capital available to the oil and gas sector and it becomes less practical for lenders and borrowers to address fi nancial crisis through insolvency proceedings. IH Tom Cumming and Caireen E. Hanert are partners in Gowling WLG's restructuring and insolvency group in Calgary. Gowling WLG was co-counsel to Grant Thornton Limited, Redwater's receiver and trustee.

• Cover