United States: NAESB Contract Not Protected By Bankruptcy Code Safe Harbor Provisions

The decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hutson v. Smithfield Packing Co. (In re National Gas Distributors, LLC)1 poses potentially serious problems for parties trading gas under the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) base contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit will soon review this case of first impression about what constitutes a “swap agreement” under the expanded definition included in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code after the 2005 amendments. That ruling could affect market participants trading gas and other physical commodities, as the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., (ISDA) recently warned:

[T]he Bankruptcy Court’s narrowing of the scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbors” with respect to derivative transactions will have a disruptive and deleterious effect on the financial markets. . . . The Bankruptcy Court’s ruling as a matter of law that the contract between National Gas Distributors and Smithfield was not a “swap agreement” but rather a “supply agreement” and therefore does not fall within the newly expanded Bankruptcy Code definition of swap agreement is contrary to both the express language of the Bankruptcy Code and Congressional intent. That the Bankruptcy Court chose this path by analogizing the large-scale, future-priced contract to “the smallest case of a farmer who contracts to sell his hogs at the end of the month for a fixed price” is particularly confusing. This confusion is heightened by the absence of fact finding. The Bankruptcy Court’s ruling has drawn a great deal of attention in the industry and needs to be addressed as soon as possible so that a clear precedent on this new and important provision can be established.

Perhaps most importantly, the decision reiterates the wisdom of knowing your counterparty, because in National Gas, the debtor was allegedly engaged in an effort to intentionally defraud creditors.

In National Gas, the court concluded that the NAESB contract at issue was not a “swap agreement” protected from the trustee’s avoidance powers under the safe harbor provisions of sections 546 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court also in dicta concluded that the NAESB contract at issue was not a “forward contract,” but that dicta rests on an interpretation of the Code’s definition of “forward contract” that has since been revised.

This decision (even if it survives appeal) may have limited impact, given the particulars of the case. Nevertheless, this decision points out the substantial uncertainty surrounding the issue of whether term agreements for physical commodities qualify for the Code’s safe harbor protections, especially where the non-debtor party is an end user or supplier (as distinguished from a marketer or reseller). In National Gas, the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina concluded that whatever a “swap agreement” may be, it does “not include contracts between a seller and an end user for delivery of a product that happens to be a recognized commodity.”

The trustee in National Gas Distributors’ bankruptcy brought avoidance actions against Smithfield Packing Company and more than 20 other former customers of National Gas, seeking to recover the value of natural gas sold by the debtor in the year preceding the bankruptcy. The sales to Smithfield were governed by an NAESB agreement, and were allegedly at below market prices. The trustee alleged the debtor’s sales and delivery of gas to the counterparties were part of an actual intent to defraud creditors, or alternatively a constructive fraud, which the trustee could avoid under section 546 and 548.

In this effort to recover for the debtor’s estate, Smithfield became a test case for 23 other cases. Two other defendants filed motions to dismiss, but given the similarity of the cases, the court decided to hear arguments on the Smithfield matter and let that decision govern those other cases. The trustee’s complaint alleged that National Gas, as part of a fraudulent scheme, sold natural gas to some of its customers, including Smithfield, at below market prices. Specifically with respect to Smithfield, the trustee alleged that during the 12 months preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition, the debtor sold natural gas to Smithfield at below market prices (at the time of the sale) resulting in an aggregate loss to National Gas of approximately $2,144,750.

The trustee alleged that the sales were made by National Gas with the intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors. The fraud allegedly included below-market sales, false invoices, false reporting of invoices to the debtor’s secured lenders and obtaining loans on the basis of false information. According to the trustee, those alleged facts show actual fraud and support avoidance of the transfers pursuant to § 548(a)(1)(A). The trustee also alleged that at the time of the transfers, National Gas was insolvent, and because the sales were made at a price below market value, National Gas did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the natural gas that it sold, which the trustee maintains effected constructively fraudulent transfers avoidable under § 548(a)(1)(B).

Smithfield sought to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, raising the safe harbor provisions of sections 546 and 548 of the Code for forward contracts and swap agreements. All parties and the court agreed that if the NAESB contract between the debtor and Smithfield was a “swap agreement” between swap participants, the trustee’s suit would fail due to the limitation on avoidance power for swap agreements. Successfully characterizing the underlying contract as a “swap agreement” would defeat the trustee’s constructive fraud claim, because section 546(g) provides a safe harbor for any payments under a swap, whereas section 546(e)—a similar safe harbour provision applicable to “forward contracts”—protects only margin or settlement payment. It also would defeat the trustee’s actual fraud claim because section 548(d)(2)(D) presumes that a swap participant that receives a transfer in connection with a swap agreement takes for value to the extent of such transfer, and 548(c) makes non-avoidable transfers received for value in good faith.

The meaning of several Code terms took center stage in the decision. Smithfield argued that the NAESB contract was a “forward contract” and therefore was a “forward agreement,” which is included in the definition of a “swap agreement.” The court declined to bite on Smithfield’s argument. The trustee conceded the NAESB was a forward contract, but disputed that it was a forward agreement (which is not defined in the Code). The court was, however, reluctant to accept that the base contract was a “forward contract.” But even accepting that it was, the court still concluded the base contract was in fact not a “swap agreement.”

The trustee argued that even if the base contract was a “forward contract,” it was not a “swap agreement:”

The fundamental error in Defendant’s analysis is its contention that the agreements for the delivery of natural gas were ‘forward contracts” between the Debtor and Defendant, and that forward contracts necessarily constitute “swap agreements” when in fact, the contractual arrangement at issue here is nothing more than a series of agreements between a supplier and an end user for the purchase of a commodity to be delivered at an agreed upon price in the future.

The trustee submitted an expert report contending that “no market would recognize the [NAESB] contract between the parties in the present case as a swap.” The distinction between forward contracts for physical use of natural gas and swap agreements is critical because the protections afforded parties to forward contracts by section 546(e) are more limited than the protections afforded parties to swap agreements by section 546(g). Under the latter, all payments to a swap participant are protected, but only margin or settlement payments are protected for forward contracts.

The court characterized the NAESB contract as a “simple supply contract for the sale of natural gas by one party, National Gas, to another, Smithfield.” The trustee (in opposing Smithfield’s efforts to stay discovery pending appeal) characterized Smithfield’s argument as contending that the Bankruptcy Code, as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), “now contains a bright-line rule that any agreement for the sale of a commodity to be delivered more than days after the date of the agreement is a ‘swap agreement’ and protected from the trustee’s power to avoid fraudulent transfers.” The trustee portrayed such an interpretation as “elevate[ing] every simple supply agreement involving the sale of a commodity on terms other than cash-and-carry to the level of a financial derivative protected from avoidance action.”

In siding with the trustee’s argument that the NAESB contract, although a forward contract, was not a forward agreement, the court also cited confusing language in the definition of forward contract:

To complicate things further, the definition of forward contract excludes a “commodity contract.” § 101(25). All parties agree that natural gas is a commodity. The term commodity contract is not defined and could reasonably be interpreted to mean a contract involving a commodity to be delivered in the future, but one that is not “the subject of dealing in the forward contract trade.” For both of these reasons, the court believes that a simply supply contract should not be included within the definition of a forward contract.

In characterizing the NAESB contract as a simple supply contract for physical gas, National Gas rejected the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (In re Olympic Natural Gas Co.)2 and the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Mirant Corp.3 According to National Gas

The contract in Olympic Natural Gas was a “Natural Gas Sales and Purchase Contract” which provided hat “each month the parties would enter into a series of individual transactions, in which each would act ometimes as buyer and sometimes as seller, after agreeing the price, quantity, timing, and delivery point or the natural gas.” One of the parties to the contract, Morgan Stanley Capital Group, was not a supplier f natural gas, but acted as both buyer and seller under the contract. The contract in that case clearly was ot an actual supply contract.

Oympic Natural Gas and Mirant both found a basis not to construe “forward contract” as excluding “commodity contracts” and still preserve the safe harbor provisions for the agreements at issue. But National Gas concluded that those courts were wrong based on a “plain meaning” read of Code Section 101(25), which at that time did not yet specify that the term “commodity contract,” as used in the definition of “forward contract,” has the meaning prescribed by Code Section 761(4).

National Gas sought to justify its decision with “textualism” by cloaking the result in the equality of treatment for like creditors principle underlying the Code:

The court’s conclusion that the contract at issue is not within the definition of a swap agreement also comports with an important guiding principle for all bankruptcy courts, which was recently emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in Howard Delivery, 126 S.Ct. at 2109. The Court stated that “the Bankruptcy Code aims, in the main, to secure equal distribution among creditors.” In that case, the Court concluded that it was “far from clear” that an employer’s liability to provide worker’s compensation coverage came within the language of § 507(a)(5), which confers priority for contributions to an employee benefit plan arising from services rendered. 126 S.Ct. at 2116. For that reason, and because other factors also weighed against that categorization, the Court determined that “any doubt concerning the appropriate characterization . . . is best resolved in accord with the Bankruptcy Code’s equal distribution aim.” 126 S.Ct. at 2116. Affording to the trustee the full range of his statutory avoidance powers, on the facts before the court, is in line with both the Code’s goal of equal distribution and “the complementary principle that preferential treatment of a class of creditors is in order only when clearly authorized by Congress.” 126 S.Ct. at 2109.

 Critically, National Gas limited the applicability of its ruling to bankruptcy petitions filed prior to the effectiveness of the 2006 amendments to the Code contained in the Financial Netting Improvement Act of 2006. Those amendments revised the Code to clarify that the term “commodity contract” in the definition of “forward contract” has the meaning given in Section 761(4):

[T]he fact remains that Congress did not refer to § 761(4) either in 1990 or in 2005 when the definition of “forward contract” was amended by BAPCPA. Section 101(25)(A) was amended by the Financial Netting Improvements Act of 2006, Pub.L. 109-390, § 5(a)(1)(C)(i), and now provides that “commodity contract” is defined in § 761. The 2006 amendment is not applicable in this case, because the case was filed prior to the amendment’s effective date of December 12, 2006.

Given the current state of the Code and the bankruptcy judge’s affirmative restriction of his decision to the contract at hand, the significance of this decision should be limited. Nevertheless, National Gas raises significant concerns for parties—especially end users and producers—whose counterparties are in bankruptcy proceedings not governed by the 2006 revisions. Not only is the risk of avoidance actions greater under National Gas, but the ability of a party to a NAESB contract to walk away from a bankrupt counterparty could be in doubt. Considering the import of this decision, on September 12, 2007, Smithfield was granted leave to pursue an appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. In the meantime, skirmishes continue before the lower courts about whether to allow discovery and pretrial matters, the results of which could prejudice the appeal. It is important for the Court of Appeals to address this issue, and a prompt decision on that appeal will hopefully assuage concerns about the lingering uncertainty.


1 2007 WL 1531616 (Bankr. E.D.N.C.)

2 294 F.3d 737 (5th Cir. 2002)

3 310 B.R. 548 (2004)

This article was co-authored by Lisa Mellencamp, Senior Counsel in the Houston Office of Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions