Energy Companies Contemplating Repurchase of Discounted Debt Should Carefully Analyze Corporate, Securities Law and Tax Considerations

Mar 27, 2020

Reading Time : 5 min

Corporate Considerations   

While the appropriate debt repurchasing approach will vary by company, many of the basic considerations are universal: 

Existing Debt Terms

Companies should review their existing debt contracts to determine if there are any terms precluding (or reducing the attractiveness of) a debt buyback.  The terms of existing debt instruments could pose challenges by restricting or limiting debt repurchases themselves or the company’s capacity to re-incur the debt.

Securities Law and Disclosure Requirements

Buybacks of debt securities—like other securities transactions—subject companies to certain disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws.  Importantly, a company contemplating a repurchase of its debt securities must consider whether it possesses any material non-public information (MNPI). If so, the issuer must disclose such information prior to repurchasing debt securities.  Unless the company wants to issue a press release or a Form 8-K with the necessary disclosure, that may mean that the company may need to wait until it has released earnings or filed the next periodic report before repurchasing debt securities . Alternatively, a company making open market repurchases could consider entering into a Rule 10b5-1 repurchase plan during a time when it is not in possession of MNPI. Under such a plan, even if the company subsequently comes into possession of MNPI during the course of the plan, the automated repurchases would not be deemed to have been made on the basis of such information. Finally, the company should consider whether the adoption of the repurchase plan is itself MNPI that requires disclosure prior to the commencement of repurchases. Whether the repurchase plan itself constitutes MNPI ultimately depends on many factors, including the amount of debt being repurchased and the overall impact the repurchases will have on the company’s financial condition.  Your legal counsel should be well-equipped to guide you through these regulatory obstacles and help you to determine what you need to disclose and when. 

Tender Offer Rules (and How to Avoid Being Subjected to Them)

Companies should be mindful that debt buybacks, both privately negotiated ones and those conducted in the open market, could inadvertently trigger the tender offer rules.  Companies will typically want to structure a debt buyback to avoid the tender offer rules, which reduce a company’s flexibility by imposing mandatory offering periods and extensions, payment terms, and disclosure obligations.  At the same time, companies wishing to repurchase significant amounts of debt may instead choose to conduct a widespread offer in compliance with the tender offer rules.  The traditional test to identify a tender offer weighs the presence of the eight “Wellman” factors (originally from Wellman v. Dickinson, 475 F. Supp. 783, 823-24 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)):

  • The offer is actively and widely disseminated to the market.
  • The offer is for a substantial percentage of the outstanding issue.
  • The offer is at a premium to the market price.
  • The terms of the offer are firm and not negotiable.
  • The offer is contingent on a fixed principal amount being tendered.
  • The offer is only open for a limited time period.
  • The debt holders are pressured to sell.
  • A public announcement of the buyback precedes or accompanies a rapid accumulation of large amounts of the target security.

Not all eight factors need to be present for a debt buyback to be deemed a tender offer, and the weighting of each factor will vary based on the facts and circumstances.  Thus, would-be debt repurchasers wishing to avoid the tender offer rules should proceed with caution and consider the following guidelines when structuring a debt buyback program:

  • Limit the number of securities repurchased. Repurchase efforts should not be aimed at an entire series of notes or a substantial portion of one series.
  • Make offers only to a limited number of sophisticated holders. Even for bond series that are likely held only by institutional investors, limit your offers to a small number of institutions that are likely to be holding the bonds.
  • Do not include a specified expiration time in your offers (ideally, the repurchases would occur over a meaningful period of time).
  • Repurchase each holder’s debt securities on privately and individually negotiated prices and terms.
  • Do not condition your offers on achieving the repurchase of a certain principal amount.
  • Avoid advertisements or announcements relating to the repurchase.

Tax Consequences of Debt Buybacks

While a debt buyback can help a company de-lever its balance sheet, tax considerations must also be analyzed in order to address risks and to preserve the expected economic benefits.  When a company buys back its debt in the market at a discount and such debt is thereafter effectively “cancelled” because the company would not have to repay the debt, the company generally is required to recognize cancellation of debt income (“CODI”) to the extent of the discount.  The same CODI result occurs if the debt is repurchased by a “related person,” which generally speaking for a corporate issuer, is a person or entity that owns 50 percent or more of the equity in the corporation.   

For corporate issuers, a deduction for the carryover of net operating losses (“NOLs”) can mitigate the tax consequences of CODI recognition.  After the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, a corporation can only use post-2017 NOLs carryforward to offset up to 80 percent of its taxable income (including CODI), leaving at least 20 percent of CODI subject to tax. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) was signed into law and now allows NOLs generated in 2018, 2019 and 2020 to be carried back five years, as well as carried forward to offset 100 percent of taxable income (including CODI) without the 80 percent income limitation.  For corporate issuers with 2018 and 2019 NOLs carryforward and considering debt buybacks, this new provision in the CARES Act can further reduce any potential CODI impact resulting from the debt buybacks. 

Exceptions to the inclusion of CODI may be available to corporate issuers in certain circumstances.  For example, a corporate issuer is not required to include CODI in its gross income if it is in bankruptcy or if the corporate issuer is insolvent. When a corporate issuer relies on the bankruptcy or insolvency exception, it must generally reduce their tax attributes (such as NOLs) or the tax basis in its assets by the amount of CODI excluded.

If the issuer of debt is classified as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, discharges of partnership debt give rise to CODI that is separately stated and allocated to each partner of the partnership.  Given that partnerships do not generate NOLs, there is no mitigation of CODI at the partnership level.  Further, any exclusions of CODI under the bankruptcy or insolvency exception are applied at the partner level by each partner, depending upon that partner’s particular circumstances.  Thus, the bankruptcy or insolvency of the partnership is irrelevant for these purposes, and only partners that are bankrupt or insolvent may make use of those exclusions.

Companies considering debt repurchases should consult with their advisors regarding the risks and tax consequences associated with such transactions to preserve the intended economic benefits and avoid surprises.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

November 12, 2025

On November 7, 2025, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) reversed their prior positions and approved Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certifications and other environmental permits for the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s (Transco) Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (NESE). NESE is a 25-mile natural gas pipeline expansion project certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that is intended to deliver 400,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas produced in Pennsylvania to local distribution company customers in New York City through new facilities in Middlesex County, New Jersey and an underwater segment traversing the Raritan and Lower New York Bays.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

November 6, 2025

The market for the direct procurement of energy by commercial and industrial buyers has been active in the U.S. for a decade.  In years past, buyers often engaged in such purchases on a voluntary basis to achieve their goals to use renewable energy.  These days, C&I buyers are turning to direct procurement or self-supply to obtain a reliable source of energy.  Sufficient and accessible energy from a local utility may not be available or may be materially delayed or trigger significant capital costs.  This is a material change driven in part by increased demand for electricity, including demand from data centers, EV infrastructure and industrial development.       

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 27, 2025

On October 23, 2025, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) directed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conduct a rulemaking to assert jurisdiction over load interconnections to the bulk electric transmission system and establish standardized procedures for the interconnection of large loads.1 The Directive included an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANOPR) that sets forth the legal justification for asserting jurisdiction over transmission-level load interconnections and fourteen principles that should inform FERC’s rulemaking process. The Secretary has directed FERC to take “final action” on the Directive no later than April 30, 2026.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

October 24, 2025

On October 21, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a final order (DOE/FECM Order No. 5264-A1) granting Venture Global CP2 LNG, LLC long-term authorization to export up to 1,446 billion cubic feet per year of domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its Louisiana facility to countries without a free trade agreement with the United States (Non-FTA Countries). The final order follows a March 2025 Conditional Order,2 which issued while DOE was still completing its review of the agency’s 2024 LNG Export Study.3 The final order confirms that the project’s export volume and term authorization (through December 31, 2050) are unchanged, but provides for a three-year “make-up period” to allow export of any approved volume not shipped during the original term.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.