Change of control: developments in the United Kingdom

Mar 25, 2015

Reading Time : 2 min

By: Hannah Marshall, trainee solicitor (not admitted to practice)

Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman’s LetterOne investment fund has recently acquired a number of North Sea gas fields. Following this purchase, DECC asked LetterOne to provide reasons why DECC should not block the purchase and require a further change of control to a suitable third party. DECC’s concern relates to potential sanctions against Russian companies resulting in closure of the fields.

Reports suggest that LetterOne had requested a letter of comfort from DECC prior to the purchase, but this was not granted. At the time of authorship, LetterOne has provided a detailed response to DECC and is waiting for a response. Recent reports have suggested that Fridman has started to look for buyers for LetterOne’s gas fields in order to avoid a lengthy dispute with the government, despite the previous threats of judicial review if the purchase was blocked.

How does this work in the United Kingdom?

Under the Petroleum Act 1998, the conditions of licences are contained in “model clauses” which are enacted as secondary legislation and incorporated into all U.K. licences. 

According to the model clauses, all assignments of a licence are prohibited, unless the prior consent of DECC is obtained. If consent is not given, then DECC may revoke the licence or reverse the assignment.

However, the situation is different where there has been a change in control of the licence holder, since the model clauses do not require an entity to seek prior approval.  Both direct and indirect changes of control are caught by the definition in the model clauses, with the threshold being control of one-third or more of the share capital or assets of the company. The definition also includes any entitlements to acquire at a future date, and also captures anticipated changes of control.

While consent is not required in advance, DECC retains the subsequent power to object to the change of control and can instruct the licensee to change the control again within three months. If the licensee does not change control within this period, DECC may revoke the licence.

These provisions are a common feature of petroleum licences internationally, and licences often contain a requirement to seek governmental consent or approval for changes in controls of licensees. While not frequently seen in practice, the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators also provides for an optional change-of-control clause in its model joint operating agreement, under which parties can be required to provide satisfactory evidence to the other parties that, following a change in control, the relevant party still has the financial capability to meet its obligations under the joint operating agreement and licence.

Recommendations

It is important to engage with regulators at an early stage when dealing with any changes of control to ensure that the transaction does not encounter later problems. If entities are concerned that DECC may object to the change of control, or they wish to have further comfort that it will not instruct any further changes of control, DECC is willing to consider requests for some assurance and will often issue letters of comfort. DECC states that its policy in issuing letters of comfort requires that a licensee can show that the change of control will not affect its ability to meet existing obligations and liabilities. Letters of comfort are designed to offer reassurance, but they do not restrict DECC from exercising its powers to instruct further changes and revoke the licence.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 07, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 3, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin and ICF’s recently presented “Powering Progress: Decoding FERC Order No. 1920” webinar, along with the program materials.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partner Ben Reiter at Infocast's Transmission & Interconnection Summit, where he will moderate the “Dealing with the Impacts of Increased Interconnection Request Requirements and Costs” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 4, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partners Hayden Harms and Vanessa Wilson at Infocast's RNG & SAF Capital Markets Summit, where Hayden will moderate the "Investor Perspectives: Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, & Strategies" panel, and Vanessa will moderate the "Opportunities in Other Biogas/Fuels Markets" panel.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.