Preparing for a Joint Venture Partner’s Bankruptcy

Mar 29, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min
  • Lien Perfection – Memorandum/Recording Supplement of JOA and UCC Financing Statement. Generally, joint operating agreements (JOA) include a grant of reciprocal liens and security interests among operators and nonoperators to secure the performance of the parties’ respective payment and other obligations under the JOA. The effort to perfect these interests is important to provide the secured partners with priority over later creditors. Liens and security interests that are not properly perfected can generally be avoided by the debtor in bankruptcy under the “strong-arm” provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In order to perfect the lien on the real property interests of the debtor (such as oil and gas leases, fixtures and reserves in the ground), either the JOA itself or a legally sufficient memorandum or recording supplement thereof must be recorded in the mortgage records of the counties (and/or parishes) in which the properties are situated. To perfect a lien against as-extracted oil and gas or other personal property, a uniform commercial code (UCC) financing statement is generally filed. To be effective, such statement must, among other things, name the proper secured party and debtor, reasonably identify the proper collateral, be recorded in the proper recording office and otherwise comply with the UCC in the applicable jurisdiction. To perfect a security interest in as-extracted collateral, a nondebtor can also record a mortgage filed as a financing statement covering as-extracted collateral. However, the validity of a financing statement or mortgage filed to perfect interests in as-extracted oil and gas interests rests upon the UCC adopted in the applicable jurisdiction, and, in certain oil and gas producing states, the applicable UCC requires that such documents be renewed every five years during the six-month period prior to the expiration of each succeeding five-year period. In our experience, not all E&P producers are filing continuation statements in a timely manner, and, thus, in those cases, financing statements are lapsing, and joint venture partners’ claims are no longer secured.
  • Advance Payments. Operators concerned about a nonoperator’s financial viability should take steps well in advance of any bankruptcy filing by such nonoperator to exercise applicable cash call rights. In these circumstances, operators should also consider cash calling all estimated expenses (not just the next month’s expenses) to the extent that the underlying documents permit such request. Operators should also pay close attention to the applicable funding deadlines and make certain to exercise remedies, such as suspension of rights, if these payment deadlines are missed by a failing joint venture partner.
  • Direct Payments. In the case of nonoperators concerned about a restructuring involving an operator, direct payment to vendors by the nonoperators (versus allowing the operator to make payment) could provide protection. The funds that are used to pay joint venture expenses would go directly from the nondebtor partner to the applicable third-party vendors and would never reside in any account over which the debtor has ownership rights. This would mitigate any risk that prefunded amounts held in a debtor-operator’s account would become property of its bankruptcy estate and would likely cut off any arguments to the contrary.
  • Escrow or Segregated Account. To the extent that direct payments are not an option, prefunding joint venture project funds to an escrow account is the next most preferable outcome. Generally, the cash held in an escrow account of this type would not become property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Rather, only the debtor’s rights under the escrow agreement would become part of its bankruptcy estate. For example, if the debtor is entitled to a release of the funds in the escrow account under certain circumstances specified in the escrow agreement, that right would become part of its bankruptcy estate. There is some degree of litigation risk if the debtor asserts that it is entitled to a release of funds, but much of this risk can be ameliorated with carefully crafted escrow instructions regarding the release of project funds. An alternative to setting up an escrow account is to establish a segregated joint account requiring countersignatures from both the operator and nonoperator(s) on all checks. Note that, while this option is not without risks, it still has a substantially better outcome than funding project funds into a commingled account.

****

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 6, 2025

In Sierra Club v. FERC, No. 24-1199 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) approval of a 1,000-foot natural gas pipeline segment crossing the United States-Mexico border (the Border Pipeline) under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), rejecting environmental groups’ challenges that FERC improperly limited its analysis under both the NGA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as related to a 155-mile intrastate “Connector Pipeline” constructed upstream of the Border Pipeline in Texas.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 17, 2025

On July 15, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued an order1 proposing to eliminate the soft price cap of $1,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for bilateral spot sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) that was implemented following the California energy crisis. If adopted, the Commission’s proposal would eliminate the requirement that sellers make a filing with FERC cost justifying spot market sales in excess of the soft price cap, which have become increasingly common in recent years as market conditions have continued to tighten throughout the West. Eliminating the WECC soft price cap would provide sellers that make sales during periods when prices exceed the cap greater certainty that their sales will not be second guessed after the fact.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2025

On June 4–5, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) hosted a commissioner-led technical conference to discuss resource adequacy challenges facing regional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTO). The conference is a response to the growing concern that multiple RTO regions across the country may not have sufficient supply available in the coming years to meet demand due to resource retirements, the pace of new generation entry and higher load growth arising from the construction of data centers and reindustrialization.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2025

We are pleased to share the presentation slide deck and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating U.S. Policy Shifts in the Critical Minerals Sector.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 10, 2025

On June 4, 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced revisions to its procedures for pipeline safety enforcement actions. The changes, outlined in two new policy memoranda from PHMSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (PHC), aim to enhance due process protections for pipeline operators by clarifying how civil penalties are calculated and expanding the disclosure of agency records in enforcement proceedings.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 22, 2025

On May 19, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) finalized its 2024 LNG Export Study: Energy, Economic and Environmental Assessment of U.S. LNG Exports (the 2024 Study) through the release of a Response to Comments on the 2024 Study. The Response to Comments concludes that the 2024 Study, as augmented through public comments submitted on or before March 20, 2025, supporting a finding that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports serve the public interest. With the comment process complete, DOE will move forward with final orders on pending applications to export LNG to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

May 20, 2025

On Thursday, May 15, the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Freight, Pipelines and Safety held a hearing titled, “Pipeline Safety Reauthorization: Ensuring the Safe and Efficient Movement of American Energy.” The hearing examined legislative priorities for reauthorizing the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

April 15, 2025

On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (EO)1 directing several federal agencies and subagencies that regulate energy, environmental, and conservation matters,2 including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Energy (DOE), to establish conditional sunset dates for “regulations governing energy production.” The stated objective of the EO is to require agencies to periodically reexamine their regulations to ensure that they continue to serve the public good. For FERC, the order covers regulations promulgated under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA)3, as amended, while DOE must consider regulations promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct 1992), the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), as amended (collectively the Covered Regulations).4 To the extent the DOE has been directed to promulgate regulations under various sections of the NGA, FPA and FUA, and FERC has been directed to promulgate regulations specific to the statutes attributed to the DOE in the EO, the EO is silent. The EO expressly does not apply to those “regulatory permitting regimes authorized by statute.”5

...

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.