In re Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Decision Date | 28 October 2020 |
Docket Number | CASE NO: 20-33233 (Jointly Administered) |
Citation | 622 B.R. 274 |
Parties | IN RE: CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Debtors. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas |
Vienna Flores Anaya, Jackson Walker LLP, Fareed I. Kaisani, Baker Botts L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Victoria Nicole Argeroplos, Matthew D. Cavenaugh, Genevieve Marie Graham, Kristhy M. Peguero, Veronica Ann Polnick, Cameron A. Secord, Jackson Walker LLP, Houston, TX, Anthony Frank Arguijo, Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Jennifer F. Wertz, Jackson Walker LLP, Austin, TX, Alexandra Schwarzman, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, Joshua Bacon Selig, Bymes Keller et al, Seattle, WA, Dustin Lyle Womack, Anna Rotman and Kenneth A. Young, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Houston, TX, for Debtors.
Stephen Douglas Statham, Office of US Trustee, Houston, TX, for U.S. Trustee.
In this contested matter, the Debtors seek to reject a gas purchase agreement with ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. ("ETC") as an executory contract under 11 U.S.C. § 365. ETC objects to the requested relief asserting that the agreement contains a covenant running with the land and is therefore not executory. The Debtors counter that (i) the agreement fails to comply with Texas law to establish a covenant running with the land; and (ii) if the agreement does contain a covenant running with the land, it is not per se prohibited from rejecting the agreement.
The Debtors filed these jointly administered bankruptcy cases on June 28, 2020. [Docket No. 1]. The cases were designated as complex chapter 11 cases under the Procedures for Complex Cases in the Southern District of Texas. [Docket No. 82]. Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C. and Chesapeake Energy Marking, LLC (collectively "Chesapeake") are each a debtor.
On June 28, 2020, the Debtors filed their Motion for Entry of an Order (i) Authorizing Rejection of Certain Executory Contracts Effective as of July 1, 2020 and (ii) Granting Related Relief (the "Rejection Motion") [Docket No. 27]. In the Rejection Motion, the Debtors sought, in part, to reject a gas purchase agreement with ETC.1 [Docket No. 27]. ETC filed its objection to the Rejection Motion on July 24, 2020. [Docket No. 487]. The parties filed supporting briefs on August 17, 2020. [Docket Nos. 810 and 813]. Each party filed a response brief on August 24, 2020. [Docket Nos. 999 and 1001].
The Debtors filed their reply to ETC's objection on August 27, 2020. [Docket No. 1032]. In the reply, the Debtors asserted that (i) rejection of the ETC agreement would not impair any covenant running with the land that might exist and that ETC would receive a claim under the liquidated damages provision of the agreement; (ii) no privity exists with respect to Chesapeake's mineral estate; and (iii) the ETC agreement does not touch and concern the land as severed gas is personalty under Texas law. [Docket No. 1032 at 1–2].
On August 27, 2020, ETC filed its response to the Debtors' reply [Docket No. 1033]. In its argument, ETC relies upon the proposition that an agreement cannot be an executory contract if it contains a covenant running with the land to support its objection to the Rejection Motion. [Docket No. 1033 at 3].
The Court conducted a hearing on the Rejection Motion on August 31, 2020. [Docket No. 1056]. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement. [Docket No. 1056].
The Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this contested matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), (e). The matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) as a request to reject an executory contract under § 365 can only arise in a bankruptcy case. See In re Southmark Corp. , 163 F.3d 925, 930 (5th Cir. 1999) . The Court has constitutional authority to enter a final order in this contested matter. Stern v. Marshall , 564 U.S. 462, 486–87, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011). To the extent necessary, the parties have impliedly consented to the entry of a final order by the Court. See Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif , 575 U.S. 665, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1947–48, 191 L.Ed.2d 911 (2015) ( ).
Effective February 23, 2016, ETC and Chesapeake entered into a "Base Contract for Sale and Purchase of Natural Gas" (the "Base Contract"). [Docket No. 1035-2]. Under the Base Contract, Chesapeake agreed to sell and ETC agreed to buy certain quantities of Gas for a particular transaction. [Docket No. 1035-2]. Under Appendix 1, Special Provisions A to the Base Contract (the "Appendix"), the term "Gas" was modified from its original definition to mean "methane and other gaseous hydrocarbons, including gaseous combustible, noncombustible, and inert elements, compounds, components or mixtures thereof and liquefiable hydrocarbons in the vapor stream produced and recovered at the wellhead." (sic )" [Docket No. 1035-2, Appendix 1, at 13].
The parties executed a Transaction Confirmation effective February 23, 2016 (the "Confirmation Transaction") subject to the Base Contract that modified certain terms of the Base Contract and further defined the relationship between the parties. [Docket No. 1035-2, Transaction Confirmation]. Under the Confirmation Transaction, the parties agreed as follows:
Seller shall tender all of Seller's Gas to Buyer at the Delivery Point(s) during the term of this Transaction Confirmation, up to the SRC set forth on Exhibit "E" attached hereto. On a Firm basis, Buyer shall accept and purchase at the Delivery Point(s) all Gas that Seller delivers to such Delivery Point(s), up to the MDQ for each Delivery Point as set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and the SRC in total ....
[Docket No. 1035-2, Transaction Confirmation, at 19]. The parties further agreed that:
[s]ubject to Seller's Reservations, Seller dedicates for sale and delivery hereunder all of the Gas owned or controlled by Seller or an Affiliate of Seller that is produced from the oil and gas leases described in Exhibit "C"2 to this Transaction Confirmation (such Gas, "Seller's Gas", and such leases, the "Dedicated Leases"), up to the SRC; provided, however, such dedication does not include the Gas attributable to any non-operating working interest in a lease equal to less than thirty percent (30%). Seller shall not assign, transfer or convey any interest now owned or hereafter acquired (directly or indirectly) in the Dedicated Leases without expressly making same subject to this Transaction Confirmation and the Base Contract. Seller's dedication hereunder is a covenant running with the land, and Buyer and Seller shall sign, and Buyer shall file in the property records of the applicable county or counties, a Memorandum of this Transaction Confirmation in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
[Docket No. 1035-2, Transaction Confirmation, at 19] (emphasis added). The Seller's Reservations include:
[Docket No. 1035-2, Transaction Confirmation, at 20].
In the event of a breach of the agreement, the parties agreed to the following exclusive remedy:
3.2. The sole and exclusive remedy of the parties in the event of a breach of a Firm obligation to deliver or receive Gas shall be recovery of the following: (i) in the event of a breach by Seller on any Day(s), payment by Seller to Buyer in an amount equal to the positive difference, if any, between the purchase price paid by Buyer utilizing the Cover Standard and the Contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
KrisJenn Ranch, LLC v. DMA Props., Inc. (In re KrisJenn Ranch, LLC)
...ROW, "[g]enerally speaking, such an acknowledgement, without more, would establish the requisite intent." In re Chesapeake Energy Corp. , 622 B.R. 274, 282 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020). But the analysis does not end there. In Texas, a covenant running with the land is not created simply because ......
-
Southland Royalty Co. v. Wamsutter LLC (In re Southland Royalty Co.)
...the agreement. As after a breach, so too after a rejection, those rights survive."); see also In re Chesapeake Energy Corp. , No. 20-33233, 622 B.R. 274, 281 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2020) ("ETC repeatedly asserts that the ETC Purchase Agreement cannot be an executory contract if it conta......
-
Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Sanchez Energy Corp. (In re Sanchez Energy Corp.)
...of a particular contract based upon the circumstances faced by the debtor during the bankruptcy case." In re Chesapeake Energy Corp. , 622 B.R. 274, 280 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020). A debtor's rejection decision is evaluated using the business judgment rule. Mission Product , 139 S. Ct. at 1658......
-
Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Sanchez Energy Corp. (In re Sanchez Energy Corp.)
...of a particular contract based upon the circumstances faced by the debtor during the bankruptcy case." In re Chesapeake Energy Corp., 622 B.R. 274, 280 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020). A debtor's rejection decision is evaluated using the business judgment rule. Mission Product, 139 S. Ct. at 1658. ......
-
Chapter 5 OIL AND GAS UPDATE: LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2020 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...2020).[217] Id. at 740.[218] No. CV H-18-2275, 2020 WL 1442136 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2020).[219] 621 B.R. 188 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020).[220] 622 B.R. 274 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020).[221] Id. at 282-84.[222] No. 19-0368, 2020 WL 1911459 (W. Va. Apr. 20, 2020).[223] See Davis v. Hardman, 133 S.E.2d......