Tag: UK

The Uncertain Future of the UK Renewables Obligation: A Three-Part Series

In early June 2015, the UK Department for Energy & Climate Change (“DECC”) was expected to announce plans to close the existing subsidy scheme for onshore wind, the Renewables Obligation (“RO”), to new generating capacity a year earlier than expected. This announcement has been delayed amid concerns that it could spark potential legal challenges from the industry and lead to a dispute with the Scottish Government over the future of onshore wind.

In this three-part series, we outline how the RO operates, the potential impact of the early closure of the RO upon the onshore wind industry, and the possible routes for challenge and redress for industry participants who may be affected.

Part One: An Overview of the Renewables Obligation and Plans for Its Early Closure

How does the RO operate?

The RO is designed to support renewable electricity projects in the UK. It obliges UK electricity suppliers to source a proportion of the electricity that they supply to customers from eligible renewable sources. The RO is currently set to close to all new generating capacity of any technology on 31 March 2017.

Ofgem, which administers the scheme, issues Renewable Obligation Certificates (“ROCs”) to electricity generators for the eligible renewable electricity they generate.  The ROCs are sold, either directly or indirectly, to electricity suppliers, who can use the ROCs to demonstrate their compliance with their annual obligations (i.e., “redeem” the ROCs against their RO). If a supplier does not present sufficient ROCs to meet its RO, it must pay a penalty known as the buy-out price. The funds collected by Ofgem from the buy-out price are redistributed on a pro-rata basis to suppliers who redeem ROCs.

What are the proposed changes to the RO?

Before winning the UK general election, the Conservative party pledged that it would end “any new public subsidies” for onshore wind farms on the basis that they “often fail to win public support and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires”.

DECC is expected announce that it will close the RO to new generating capacity in April 2016, instead of April 2017. Such a move has been described as “going further” than the Conservative party’s pre-election pledge, by ending an existing subsidy a year earlier than expected. At present, DECC has reportedly declined to confirm the precise nature of the proposals.

The majority Conservative Government disclosed in late May 2015 that it would “be announcing measures to deliver this soon”, after conducting a consultation with the devolved administrations (Scotland and Northern Ireland) over the nature of the changes. However, at the time of writing, an announcement has not yet been made.

The basis for delaying the announcement of these measures appears to be twofold.

First, the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Scottish First Minister and SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, have opposing opinions over the future of onshore wind. While Cameron has stated that “enough is enough” for onshore wind subsidies,  Sturgeon has demanded a veto on the Conservative’s plans. Energy Minster Amber Rudd stated that the consultation with devolved authorities would continue “until we have arrived at a firm policy”, and MPs would have to “bear with us a little longer”.

Second, trade bodies representing the onshore wind industry have vocally opposed the Conservative’s plans, due to their potentially significant effect on the future of onshore wind in the UK. The possible impact on the industry is considered in part two of this series.

Part Two: How Would the Renewables Obligation’s Early Closure Affect the UK Onshore Wind Industry?

Part Three: An Overview of the Legal Mechanisms for Challenge and Redress by Those Potentially Affected by the Early Closure of the Renewables Obligation

ARTICLE BY William Lowery & Catherine Karia of Covington & Burling LLP
© 2015 Covington & Burling LLP

UK Employment Tribunal Awards £3.2m To Woman Called “Crazy Miss Cokehead” By Colleagues

Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP law firm

The woman who was called “Crazy Miss Cokehead” by her manager has been awarded nearly £3.2m by an Employment Tribunal for sexual harassment, reportedly including £44,000 for injury to feelings and a further £15,000 in aggravated damages.

We originally posted a blog on this story in November 2013 http://www.employmentlawworldview.com/crazy-miss-cokehead-when-banter-goes-too-far/.  Following the liability hearing, the Tribunal found in favour of Svetlana Lokhova who worked for the London branch of the Russian bank Sberbank CIB (UK) Ltd.

The Tribunal found that 19 out of her 22 allegations were not well founded.  However, on the main issues, it was found that Ms Lokhova’s former manager, David Longmuir, had bullied and harassed her on grounds of sex (even in emails), reportedly suggesting that she needed to visit a Nigerian tribesman for sex to “calm her down”.  Other such put-downs included saying that she had only been hired “because of her t***” and poking fun at her perceived privileged background.

In a stinging attack on the Bank, the Tribunal heavily criticised its conduct of the proceedings and said that there had been a “deliberate” attempt to bully her at the liability hearing in relation to an allegation that Ms Lokhova took drugs.  It said, “That allegation is completely without foundation and should never have been put to her in cross examination”.  In a Jeremy Kyle-style twist, Ms Lokhova was so “incensed and appalled” by the allegation that she took a drug test during the hearing, which was negative.

There were a number of other aggravating factors in this case.  Mr Longmuir was not disciplined at all despite the strength of the evidence and carried on working for the Bank for a further year after the bullying, receiving a £168,000 pay-off when he eventually did leave.  While I am sure that this of course had no bearing at all on the Tribunal’s ruling, you might be aware that with the benefit of the tax breaks applicable to severance payments, this is the equivalent of an Employment Judge’s salary for some 20 months.  No reason at all why thatpay-off should have irritated the Tribunal.

The Tribunal further criticised Paolo Zaniboni (who is still the CEO of the London office) who took no action against Mr Longmuir despite the evidence against him and whom the Tribunal also found to be guilty of unlawful victimisation.

The Tribunal’s attitude towards the Bank and its view of the aggravating features of this case is, perhaps, reflected in the reported awards of £44,000 and £15,000 for injury to feelings and aggravated damages respectively, which (if those reports are right) are very high awards indeed compared to previous cases.   The £44,000 figure would represent nearly a 50% uplift on the previously-understood ceiling for such awards.

The Tribunal in this case found that Ms Lokhova, who earned £750,000 a year in salary and bonuses working in Equity Sales, “will never work in financial services again, on the basis of the medical evidence”.  They found that she was suffering from a moderately severe psychiatric illness and had been suffering from such since January 2012.  The bulk of her compensation therefore represented future loss of earnings.

Lessons for employers

An interesting point for employers arising out of this case is how to deal with a case like this to limit the potential financial sanctions.  In this case there were emails containing the abuse and therefore written evidence of it (however, in most cases there will not be).  It should have been obvious to the Bank that it was going to lose in relation to those allegations.  So what can you do by way of mitigation?

1.  In circumstances where internal investigations reveal that it is likely that the allegations of harassment are true, we suggest issuing an immediate apology to the complainant in relation to those allegations (and in extreme circumstances consider paying some money as compensation to the victim).

2.  If an individual brings a claim, give serious consideration also to conceding liability when it is obvious that the allegation is true (however, take legal advice before doing this). Continuing to defend allegations that are indefensible will increase your costs and could lead to the Tribunal finding that the complainant’s injury (either medical and/or to feelings) has been aggravated.  An early apology can improve your prospects of limiting the damage and you will be able to focus on the allegations that are, perhaps, capable of a defence.  A swift apology could limit the complainant’s ability to claim that stress and/or publicity had done fatal damage to his/her career path (especially in a small world like the City of London)  and so prevent such significant loss of earnings claims also.

3.  Further, think carefully what is put to a witness in Tribunal. There was no relevance of Ms Lokhova’s alleged drug habits to the main issues in this case (which was whether or not she had been bullied and harassed).  It is difficult to see how baiting her on the witness stand to try and “prove” that she was a drug addict was going to achieve anything and, in this case, the Bank scored a comprehensive own goal when she conclusively proved that she was not.

4.  Last, give visible consideration to the handling of any employee who is clearly guilty of inappropriate behaviours. It did not take the Tribunal decision to show the Bank that Mr Longmuir’s conduct should be regarded as unacceptable.  If an employer in those circumstances takes the decision not to act against an employee (for example because he/she is a real money-spinner or related to someone in senior management or a major client) then that is a judgment it is entitled to make but only once it has weighed that option against the additional compensation the harassed individual is likely to receive as a result.  A really scorching final warning would now seem to have been a better compromise.

5.  If there is a pay-off, make it as small as possible!

ARTICLE BY

Louise Martin
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

United Kingdom: A Reminder About Careful Drafting of Confidentiality Clauses for Shareholders

Katten Muchin Law Firm

The recent decision by the High Court of England and Wales (Chancery Division) in Richmond Pharmacology Limited (Company) v. Chester Overseas Limited, et al. underscores the need to carefully draft confidentiality clauses and to incorporate specific exceptions where these exceptions are reasonably foreseeable in the future. The case involved a shareholders agreement which contained a standard confidentiality clause requiring the parties to treat as strictly confidential all commercially sensitive information concerning the company subject to certain prescribed exceptions. One of the exceptions allowed disclosure to a professional advisor provided that the advisor agrees to be bound by a similar confidentiality obligation. Unsurprisingly, however, there was no specific exception allowing disclosures to a potential third-party buyer. Under the terms of the clause as drafted, the shareholder was required to obtain consent to make the disclosures. 

Over time Chester Overseas Limited decided to sell its shares and engaged a corporate finance advisor (Advisor) to assist in facilitating the sale. After the initial discussions regarding a management buy-out fell through, the Advisor sought to generate interest from third parties. In doing so, the Advisor took care to obtain nondisclosure agreements from certain of these potential buyers prior to disclosing the sensitive information. 

In its decision, the High Court stated that while the shareholder was entitled to disclose the information to its Advisor pursuant to the professional advisor exception, it was not authorized to disclose the confidential information to third parties.   

While the High Court’s decision regarding the confidentiality clause may not come as a surprise, it does reinforce the need to carefully consider a client’s position in future transactions governed under English law.   

The High Court’s decision is available here.

ARTICLE BY

Neil Robson
 
OF 
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

The UK 14th Onshore Oil and Gas Licensing Round

Andrews Kurth

At the end of July 2014, the UK government published application criteria and terms for the 14th onshore oil and gas licensing round. This will be key to the aspirations of would-be shale gas developers in the UK. Onshore licences are available in areas including the Bowland Shale in the north of England (where the British Geological Society estimates a potential gas-in-place resource of 1,329 trillion cubic feet (tcf) alone) and the Midland Valley in Scotland.

Applications for new licences under the 14th round can be made until 2:00 p.m. 28 October 2014. This is the first round of onshore licensing in the UK for six years, and the resultant final licence awards are expected to be announced in the next 12 to 18 months. The level of interest expressed in these new licences will be a good barometer of how the industry regards the steps which the UK government has been taking to promote the growth of shale gas in the UK.

Additionally, new model clauses for onshore licences have been issued in the Petroleum Licensing (Exploration and Production) (Landward Areas) Regulations 2014, which came into force on 17 July 2014. These model clauses are intended to promote unconventional oil and gas exploration and production and include several new provisions which are aimed at affording greater flexibility to licensees – these provisions relate to “drill or drop” elections, the term of the licence (with revised focus on extensions and retention areas) and splitting horizontal layers on surrenders.

The new model clauses recognise the different attributes of shale gas exploration and production programmes and that shale gas deposits typically have a much wider geographic footprint when compared to conventional oil and gas resources. Whilst greater flexibility is given to licensees under the new model clauses, there are also tighter controls over proposed project activities and timescales, with the intention of accelerating the outturns of planned exploration and production plans. 

The new model clauses are also intended to promote the findings of the recent Wood Review relating to maximising economic recovery.

There is also a new requirement for a detailed Environmental Awareness Statement (“EAS”) to be submitted with licence applications. The EAS is intended to demonstrate a licence applicant’s understanding of the environmental sensitivities relevant to the area proposed to be licensed. This requirement is intended to promote a successful interface with ecological sensitivities.

The UK government has taken a number of other steps to promote shale gas development in the UK, including introducing localised fiscal incentives to support the development of shale gas exploration pads. However, significant other issues still remain to be addressed by would-be shale gas developers, including obtaining planning permission to drill and hydraulically fracture test wells and managing often vociferous local public opposition to shale gas development. We have previously considered how UK onshore shale gas developments might be structured (see Notes From The Field – Issues 3 and 6).

Many challenges still lie ahead. Oil & Gas UK, the trade association that represents the interests of the UK’s offshore oil and gas industry, has given a cautious welcome to these new developments:

“There are a number of synergies between the offshore oil and gas industry and the onshore sector. Many of the techniques and some of the services required to recover land based unconventional shale gas already exist in the offshore oil and gas sector and should be readily transferable. There is scope for making these learnings and expertise from the offshore sector quickly transferable to operators developing onshore oil and gas resources. The new Oil and Gas Authority, which will govern both onshore and offshore industries, should ensure consistency of approach wherever applicable.”

ARTICLE BY

Peter Roberts
 
OF 
Andrews Kurth

“Dual” Employment Contracts for US Executives Working in the UK

VedderPriceLogo

 

Background

February 2014

Individuals, whether of British or foreign nationality, who reside in the UK are, in principle, taxable on their worldwide employment income. Many US executives who are “seconded” by their US employer to work in the UK may therefore become UK tax resident.

Such US executives who have not been UK resident in the three previous tax years and are not UK domiciled need not pay UK tax on their overseas earnings if they do not bring the income to the UK. Other US executives resident in the UK over the longer term may incur liability for UK tax on their overseas income unless their employer structures their employment duties under separate employment contracts, one with the UK subsidiary for their UK duties and another with the US parent for their overseas duties. These have become known as “dual contracts”. If the non-UK domiciled executive keeps the income earned under the overseas contract outside the UK, no UK income tax should arise on that income. He or she will pay UK income tax on the income earned in the UK under his or her UK contract.

“All Change”

In December 2013 HM Government announced that it would be clamping down on the artificial use of dual contracts for longer-term UK residents and has now published draft legislation that makes offshore employment income in a dual-contract arrangement taxable in the UK in certain cases.

The New Rules

Under the new anti-avoidance rules, which come into force on 6 April 2014, the dual-contract overseas income of US executives resident in the UK will be taxed in the UK if:

  • the executive has a UK employment and one or more foreign employments,
  • the UK employer and the offshore employer either are the same entity or are in the same group,
  • the UK employment and the offshore employment are “related”, and
  • the foreign tax rate that applies to the remuneration from the offshore employment is less than 75 percent of the applicable rate of UK tax. The current top rate of UK income tax is 45 percent, and 75 percent of this rate is 33.75 percent.

The UK employment and the offshore employment will be “related” where, by way of non-exhaustive example:

  • one employment operates by reference to the other employment,
  • the duties performed in both employments are essentially the same (regardless of where those duties are performed),
  • the performance of duties under one contract is dependent on the performance of duties under the other,
  • the executive is a director of either employer, or is otherwise a senior employee or one of the highest earning employees of either employer, or
  • the duties under the dual contracts involve, wholly or partly, the provision of goods or services to the same customers or clients.

Action

US corporations should urgently review the use of dual contracts for their non-UK domiciled executives seconded to their UK subsidiaries before the 6 April 2014 start date. The proposed legislation is widely drafted and has the potential to catch even genuine dual-contract arrangements. If one of the dual contracts is with a group employer in a low-tax jurisdiction, that contract may be especially vulnerable. Dual contracts will not necessarily become extinct, but in the future, careful cross-border tax advice should be sought in their structuring.

Article by:

Of:

Vedder Price

UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Issues First Fine Under New Anti-Money Laundering Regime

Morgan Lewis logo

 

Financial Conduct Authority fines Standard Bank £7.6 million for failures in its anti-money laundering controls, underlining the importance of both having and implementing adequate policies in relation to money laundering.

On 22 January, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a decision notice[1] imposing a £7.6 million fine on Standard Bank PLC, the UK subsidiary of South Africa’s Standard Bank Group.[2] The fine was issued for failures relating to Standard Bank’s anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures for corporate customers connected to politically exposed persons (PEPs).[3] This is the first AML fine issued under the FCA’s new penalty regime and the first such fine by the FCA—or its predecessor, the Financial Services Authority—in relation to commercial banking activity.

Under Regulation 20(1) of the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, regulated institutions, such as banks, must establish and maintain “appropriate risk-sensitive policies and procedures” on customer due diligence measures and ongoing monitoring of business relationships, amongst others. The policies must be aimed at preventing money laundering and terrorist financing. Guidance issued by the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group states that enhanced due diligence (EDD) should be applied where a corporate customer is linked to a PEP, such as through a directorship or shareholding, as it is likely that this will put the customer at higher risk of being involved in bribery and corruption.

As part of its investigation into Standard Bank, the FCA reviewed a sample of 48 corporate customer files, which all had a connection with a PEP, and discovered “serious weaknesses” in the application of the bank’s AML policies and procedures. The FCA found that, from 15 December 2007 to 20 July 2011, Standard Bank breached the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 by failing to take reasonable care to ensure that all aspects of its AML policies were applied appropriately and consistently to its corporate customers connected to PEPs. In particular, the FCA found that Standard Bank did not consistently carry out adequate EDD measures before establishing business relationships with corporate customers linked to PEPs and did not conduct the appropriate level of ongoing monitoring for existing business relationships by updating its due diligence. The FCA noted the failings were particularly serious because the bank dealt with corporate customers from jurisdictions regarded as posing a higher risk of money laundering and because the FCA had previously stressed the importance of AML compliance to the industry.[4] The gravity of the failings was underlined by the FCA’s director of enforcement and financial crime, who stated that “[if banks] accept business from high risk customers they must have effective systems, controls and practices in place to manage that risk. Standard Bank clearly failed in this respect”.

This is the first AML case to use the FCA’s new penalty regime, which applies to breaches committed from 6 March 2010 and under which larger fines are expected. The FCA’s decision notice sets out how it determined the level of the fine, by reference to a five-step framework (as outlined in the Decision Procedure and Penalties Manual).[5] The FCA considered the fact that the bank and its senior management cooperated in the investigation and took significant steps to remediate the problems, including seeking advice from external consultants, to be a mitigating factor. In addition, Standard Bank’s decision to settle the matter at an early stage of the investigation resulted in a 30% discount on the fine. The original penalty was £10.9 million.

The FCA’s action against Standard Bank illustrates the increasingly tough approach taken by the UK authorities against financial crime and shows that the FCA is willing and able to enforce AML legislation. Banks and regulated firms are encouraged to ensure that they have effective policies and procedures against money laundering in place and that these are being adhered to.

[1]. View the FCA’s notice here.

[2]. The sale of Standard Bank to the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been agreed to and is likely to be completed during the fourth quarter of 2014.

[3]. A “PEP” is defined in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 as “an individual who is, or has, at any time in the preceding year, been entrusted with a prominent public function”, or immediate family members and known close associates of such individuals.

[4]. The FSA published a Consultation Paper on 22 June 2011, availablehere, focusing on how banks manage money laundering risk in higher risk situations. It also published a Policy Statement on 9 December 2011, available here, providing guidance on the steps firms can take to reduce their financial crime risk.

[5]. View the manual here.

Article by:

Of:

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Caveat Emptor: Due Diligence of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Assets

Andrews Kurth

 

This article explores the due diligence of United Kingdom continental shelf (“UKCS”) oil and gas assets from a buyer’s perspective. Good management, organisation, communication, clarity and common sense are the key to a successful due diligence exercise. The scope of the due diligence review will depend on a number of factors, including whether the buyer has any knowledge of or a current participating interest in the target asset, whether the asset is in the exploration or production phase or is an operated asset, the size of the deal and any cost and time restraints. Whether a buyer requires a red flag due diligence report or a comprehensive report on the asset, care must be taken to ensure that no stone is left unturned during the course of the review. Failure to do so may result in undesirable consequences.

Preparation

Before embarking on an extensive review of the documentation provided by the seller, the buyer should seek to determine the scope of the due diligence exercise at the outset to prevent it from becoming a moving target which may lead to inefficiencies and unexpected cost implications. Sometimes the prospective buyer will investigate the asset with a view to purchase. More often than not, due diligence of the asset will amount to no more than a tyre-kicking exercise. The intention of the prospective buyer will therefore ultimately colour the scope of the due diligence undertaken.

As well as considering the information memorandum prepared by the seller (if any), it is also useful for the buyer to geographically place the asset by consulting a map of theUKCS licence interests and blocks. Such preparations will enable the buyer to better piece together the documentation provided in respect of the target asset and request any missing information from the seller.

Data Room

Whether the seller furnishes the buyer with a virtual or a physical data room, the buyer must keep an accurate record of the documents that have been disclosed. If a virtual data room is employed, the buyer must ensure that it is notified when new documents have been provided and, if documents are supplied in soft or hard copy outside of the virtual data room arrangement, details should be kept of these by the buyer as well. This is all essential because all disclosure will later form part of the sale and purchase arrangements between the buyer and seller.

Data rooms for asset disposals typically include legal, financial, technical, commercial and operational documents. One of the first tasks that a buyer should undertake is to review the data room index, if one has been provided, and allocate documents to the various specialists for review; careful coordination is paramount to ensure that all bases are covered. If no index has been supplied, one should be requested from the seller and, if such index is not forthcoming, it is recommended that the buyer compiles an index so that it can keep a running record.

Depending on the scale of the exercise and number of people employed to assist, the coordinator of the due diligence exercise should ensure that team members effectively communicate with each other. Typically, virtual data rooms limit access rights to a small pool of permitted entrants, so responsibilities should be allocated between professionals at an early stage. Data rooms are often poorly organised so it is important that the coordinator is made aware of documents which have been filed out of place in order for them to be allocated to the correct team members for review. This way, no document will be overlooked.

Title Verification

A UKCS asset is typically represented by a licence, a joint study and bidding agreement (“JSBA”) or joint operating agreement (“JOA”) and, in some cases, a working interest assignment. Assets may also be subject to a unitisation and unit operating agreement (“UUOA”), transportation, processing and petroleum sales agreements and other material project contracts.

One of the key objectives of the buyer’s due diligence is to determine whether the seller actually holds an interest in the asset. Often an asset will be described inconsistently in the documentation by which it is governed and may not correspond accurately with the information held by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (“DECC”). This is especially true of those assets historically operated under a JOA which has been subsequently sub-divided to apply to multiple blocks within a licence, or those assets with an alias which has stuck over the passage of time. It is therefore very important that both parties are agreed on the correct identity of the asset being bought and sold from the outset.

Similarly, infrastructure assets are frequently referred to under a variety of guises and are often complex in nature. For instance, the Sullom Voe Terminal, which is one of the largest oil terminals in Europe, handles production from more than twelve oil fields in the east Shetland Basin and approximately twenty different companies presently hold interests in the terminal. This, combined with the fact that it has been 35 years since first oil arrived at the Sullom Voe Terminal, means that tracing title to this infrastructure asset is likely to be a knotty and time-consuming exercise.

Although DECC holds data on all offshore licences, this should by no means act as a substitute for mechanically tracing title to an asset, however tempting this may be. Many UKCS assets date back over 40 years and so tracing title back to their inception can be a lengthy process. The buyer must therefore decide whether it wants to undertake or commission such work, or whether it can take comfort from tracing title back through only a limited number of transfers and seek a full title guarantee from the seller. Extensive title representations and warranties may reduce the scope of title due diligence but often they will be qualified by the information, or lack thereof, disclosed to the buyer in the data room and so are not a reliable remedy if there is a title defect.

There may be some merit in tracing title of each material contract back to the date on which it became effective in order to determine whether or not it is relevant to the transaction. Sometimes contracts in the data room will have been entered into by parties which are neither the seller nor its predecessors in title and, in other cases, may not be relevant to the target asset at all. In these circumstances, and depending on the purchaser’s view of the asset, it may be more efficient to determine which contracts are required to be assigned or novated at the due diligence stage rather than when the parties are seeking to complete the deal.

An additional complication is that a company which was originally the holder of an interest in an asset may have changed its name since it was first registered at Companies House. The buyer should therefore consult the change of name register held by Companies House at the start of the due diligence exercise and take note of any previous names. This will enable the buyer to piece together information relating to the asset more easily.

Title to assets, excluding infrastructure, is evidenced by the relevant licence, JSBA or JOA and, if applicable, UUOA. Typically, a transfer of a participating interest will be evidenced by a JSBA or JOA deed of novation, and if applicable a UUOA deed of novation, which will provide for the transfer of the relevant participating interest from the seller to the buyer. Conversely, not every transfer of a participating interest will be evidenced by a licence assignment. An example of this is where the buyer and seller are already party to the JOA and/or UUOA. If neither the buyer nor the seller is joining or leaving the licence, and the parties are simply adjusting their participating interests under the JOA and/or UUOA, a licence assignment will not be required. In the same way, where a licence governs multiple blocks and the buyer has an interest in another block covered by the licence and the seller is also remaining on the licence, either because it has an interest in another block covered by the licence or because it is only selling part of its interest to the buyer in the relevant block, when the buyer acquires the interest in the relevant block, a licence assignment will not be required.

There is often a question asked as to whether working interest assignments are required to show a complete chain of title to an asset. A working interest assignment evidences the transfer of the beneficial interest in the asset. The more prevalent view is that this type of assignment is no longer necessary to perfect title, especially where there is a JSBA, JOA or UUOA already in place. Its purpose, being a document on which stamp duty was levied, is now obsolete. Although, buyers and sellers still frequently include the working interest assignment in their suite of completion documents by means of convention, it is not obligatory to enter into this assignment to complete an asset transfer. Due to the disproportionate amount of time and energy that buyers and sellers may spend in hunting for non-existent working interest assignments to evidence a complete chain of title, the better view may be to exclude the working interest assignment from the scope of the title due diligence exercise.

Assignment

Pre-emption rights and consent provisions are principal deal-structure considerations and should therefore be given top priority when conducting the due diligence exercise. Their consequences may prevent the proposed deal from going ahead, increase the cost of the transaction if co-venturers are permitted to withhold their consent on the grounds of financial incapability unless some form of financial security is provided by the buyer and/or cause the deal to be restructured as a share sale. It will therefore be important to review the assignment provisions of all the material contracts, and particularly any JSBAs, JOAs and UUOAs, to identify such obstacles at the earliest possible stage.

If an asset is governed by both a JOA and UUOA, care needs to be taken in order to determine whether the pre-emption and/or consent provisions in one or both agreements apply. Often the UUOA will expressly state that the provisions in the UUOA supersede the provisions in the JOA to the extent that they conflict. In this case, the assignment provisions in the UUOA will override the assignment provisions in the JOA in respect of the area covered by the JOA which forms part of the unit area. Any remaining area that is solely governed by the JOA will be subject to the JOA pre-emption and consent provisions. If it is not clear from the documentation whether the provisions in the UUOA or JOA will prevail, the better approach for a buyer to take may be to err on the side of caution; in other words, to apply the more onerous pre-emption and/or consent provisions to the whole of the asset transfer or consider restructuring the transaction as a share sale.

Material Contracts

The scope of the due diligence review of material contracts is likely to be determined by the materiality threshold proposed by the buyer with respect to contract value. The buyer should review all material contracts in order to ascertain whether the seller has the necessary rights under such contracts and identify potential liabilities, risks and onerous provisions that affect the valuation of the asset or, worse still, could prevent the deal.

It is important that the correct selling entity holds an interest in the relevant material contract and any inconsistencies should be highlighted to the buyer so that the seller can arrange for any necessary inter-group transfers in good time if required. The buyer should also be vigilant to any poison pills that kill the contracts in the event of a change of party or change of control.

If time, cost and scope permit, it can be invaluable to prepare full and accurate contract summaries of all material contracts. The simplest and most efficient way of doing this is to table contract summary templates for the various categories of contract. For instance, there could be separate templates for licences; JSBAs, JOAs and UUOAs; petroleum sales agreements; transportation and processing arrangements; and sundry agreements, if applicable. Templates are useful aides to those reviewing the asset documentation. Firstly, they ensure that all members of the team focus and report on every provision of the contract within the scope of the due diligence exercise. Secondly, and especially for large scale due diligence reviews, they are important for the purposes of consistency and efficiency. The buyer’s due diligence report should be informative, concise, on point and appear to have been written by one person. Full, tailored contract summaries help to achieve this purpose.

Contract summaries also serve a bigger purpose. If after the due diligence exercise the buyer decides to enter into a sale and purchase agreement with the seller and proceed to completion, the closing documents will include deeds of assignment and novation for the various material contracts. Complete contract summaries make the task of deducing which material contracts will need to be assigned or novated easier. They also make for a more efficient process as they prevent the buyer from having to re-locate each document in the data room and re-review their provisions.

If the asset is producing or has an approved field development plan, the buyer should expect to see material contracts in the data room relating to petroleum sales agreements and lifting, transportation and processing arrangements. Particularly in respect of some of the older UKCS assets, it is not always clear whether a document is historical or not. Typically, the buyer will exclude historical construction, tie-in commissioning and joint development agreements from its due diligence scope and place less emphasis on reviewing pipeline crossing and proximity agreements, unless it has a particular interest in the provisions of such documents.

It is likely that the data room will include some material contracts which are governed by the laws of another country or state. Depending on the importance of such contracts, the buyer should consider whether to seek advice from local counsel. In addition, in the course of due diligence for an asset acquisition, it is likely that there will be property and tax related documentation and these should be reviewed by specialists in those fields. It may also be necessary to examine the proposed transaction from a competition perspective and so the need for competition lawyers should be considered at an early stage.

During the due diligence exercise, the buyer should be aware of any information which evidences that the seller has been acting in breach of contract or is in breach of its licence obligations. Any current or anticipated claims from third parties or on-going litigation will be of particular interest to the buyer and should be noted. The buyer should also be alerted to whether any contractual provisions will be breached by the acquisition of the target asset if they are ignored by the buyer. For instance, often under seismic data contracts data must be returned or a supplemental fee paid if the identity of the purchasing company alters.

On completion of a transaction, the buyer will want all material contracts to be novated to it from the seller, unless the transaction is structured as a share sale. In some circumstances this may not be possible if third-party consents remain outstanding and so the seller and buyer should use their reasonable endeavours to obtain such consents post completion. Typically, this approach is only taken in respect of those contracts of limited value or importance. The seller will agree to hold such contracts as trustee and agent of the buyer and the buyer will agree to perform such contracts on the seller’s behalf and indemnify the seller against any costs or liabilities it incurs in respect of such arrangement. This split completion approach is not always possible in respect of those agreements which are contractually linked to others or to the transfer of the participating interest. The buyer should therefore bear in mind any linkage provisions that it uncovers in its due diligence exercise.

Decommissioning

The buyer will be keen to discover whether a field-wide decommissioning security agreement is in place for the target asset or whether the JSBA, JOA and/or UUOA include decommissioning security provisions. Where decommissioning security provisions exist, the buyer should consider the type and amount of security required, the credit rating of such security, whether the asset is in the run-down period and/or how the trigger date is calculated. Depending on the terms of the transaction and whether a section 29 notice has been served on the seller before the asset is transferred to the buyer, the buyer may need to provide security for decommissioning under the sale and purchase agreement to the seller as well. Decommissioning arrangements will be a fundamental consideration to the buyer’s valuation of the asset and will therefore always require financial and/or actuarial input.

Encumbrances

The buyer should conduct a charges search at Companies House in order to determine whether the seller should arrange for any outstanding encumbrances over the asset to be released as part of the transaction. The buyer should also be concerned with any third-party royalties over the seller’s interest in the asset. Any royalty payments on production in respect of all petroleum won and saved will have an impact on the financial value of the target asset and so the buyer should factor the existence of these into its valuation.

Likewise, details of any outstanding cash calls, sole risk activity or carried interests may also be important considerations for the buyer and their existence may result in an adjustment of the price the buyer is prepared to pay for the asset.

Questions and Answers

The question and answer process is central to the due diligence exercise and is an important string to the buyer’s bow. By asking the seller questions, the buyer can better understand the seller’s asset from the responses provided and seek to address any holes or limitations in the data room documents. A classic example of the curious incident of the dog that didn’t bark in the night is the unknown existence of an area of mutual interest agreement which, in the most draconian of circumstances, may prevent a buyer from completing its transaction with the seller, or may prevent the buyer from applying for and/or acquiring an interest in another particular licence area post completion of its transaction with the seller.

If draft contracts have been included in the data room the buyer should ask the seller to confirm whether final versions have been executed and, where documents which have been provided during the due diligence exercise refer to others which have not, the buyer should request these missing documents from the seller. The buyer should maintain an accurate list of questions that have been submitted to the seller and the responses received. Sometimes questions will be answered unsatisfactorily and it is therefore important for the buyer to re-phrase or pursue answers to the originals.

The buyer may also choose to contact DECC with questions on an unnamed basis during the due diligence exercise if there appears to be an inconsistency between the asset data held by DECC and the documentation provided by the seller in the data room. In doing so, the buyer must be careful not to breach any provisions contained in any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement that has been entered into between the buyer and seller in respect of the transaction.

Conclusion

The buyer conducts due diligence so that it can properly evaluate the risks and benefits to it in acquiring a particular asset, re-negotiate the price that it is prepared to pay for the asset, and decide whether or not to go ahead with the purchase. The due diligence report should identify and quantify issues found and propose solutions for the buyer to consider. Depending on the concerns identified, traditional contractual protections in the sale and purchase agreement may be insufficient and, consequently, the buyer may decide to walk away from the deal. The importance of the due diligence exercise is therefore paramount.

Article by:

Rebecca Downes

Of:

Andrews Kurth LLP