Canacol: the disclaimer won in Calgary waits in Bogotá

On September 18, 2026, a Bogotá lawyer acting for KPMG Inc., the monitor and foreign representative in Canacol Energy Ltd.'s CCAA proceedings, wrote to the Deputy Superintendent of Insolvency at Colombia's Superintendency of Companies and asked for a date. The monitor had sat through every negotiation the Canacol Group had held with its offtake and pipeline counterparties, the letter says, and "does not believe that material agreements will be reached in the short-term." To preserve the sale process, keep gas moving to the Colombian market and protect the jobs of 359 employees in Colombia, it wanted a hearing on whether Colombia will recognize the disclaimer orders an Alberta court made on June 24. The letter also explained why the date mattered: unless the DIP lenders' conditions are met, "the Debtors will not have sufficient liquidity to continue their operations beyond the near term," per the Tenth Report of the Monitor, Sept. 21, 2026, App. "B", pp. 1–3.

When this case was last covered, Justice Feasby had just held, in Canacol Energy Ltd (Re), 2026 ABKB 467, that the group's long-term Colombian gas supply, pipeline and LNG logistics contracts were not eligible financial contracts and could be disclaimed under s. 32 of the CCAA, on condition that the orders be revised to keep existing pricing for counterparties serving Colombia's regulated market. The revised orders, which also defer the priority of damages claims arising from the disclaimers, were filed on July 14, per the Tenth Report, para. 12. The contracts, the counterparties and the gas are all Colombian, and three months later the orders have no effect in Colombia, and the rest of the case, from the sale process to the interim financing, now depends on whether and when they do.

Two forums, and neither has sat

The foreign representative petitioned the Superintendency for recognition on July 15. On July 24 the Superintendency did not set a hearing; it summoned conciliation meetings between each counterparty and the company, the foreign representative, and representatives of the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the national hydrocarbons agency (the ANH) and the Superintendency of Public Utilities (the SSPD), with the Superintendency acting as conciliator. Those met on August 4 and 5, recessed to let the parties consider proposals, and were set to resume on August 28. On August 28 the Superintendency cancelled the meeting, "citing internal administrative matters," and as at September 21 no further meeting had been scheduled and no recognition decision issued, per the Tenth Report, paras. 40–41, 44, 53.

In the interval, Gases de la Guajira S.A. E.S.P. and Gases del Caribe S.A. E.S.P. filed written oppositions on August 1 and 3, arguing that recognition would be manifestly contrary to Colombian public policy because terminating the contracts would compromise constitutional guarantees, and asking the Superintendency to use its conciliatory powers instead. Gases del Oriente S.A. E.S.P. filed on July 30 in support of an earlier petition by Cerro Matoso S.A.S. and CoreX asking the Superintendency not to process the recognition application at all until the Alberta leave applications are decided, per the Tenth Report, paras. 35, 42–43.

Those leave applications were filed in the Court of Appeal of Alberta in mid-July by CoreX Energy SAS ESP, Promigas S.A. E.S.P., Surtigas S.A. E.S.P., Gases del Caribe, Gases de la Guajira and Gases del Oriente, per the Tenth Report, para. 59. The joint application of Surtigas, Gases del Caribe and Gases de la Guajira, filed July 15 "to preserve time," says Justice Feasby "erred in declining to follow the principle of horizontal stare decisis and ignored or overlooked the commercial realities of the Subject Agreements," and lists eight errors, among them finding that the idiosyncrasies of the Colombian market preclude derivative agreements in natural gas "without the benefit of any expert evidence," and holding that an order cannot become effective on a later date or on a specified event, per the Application of Surtigas S.A. E.S.P. et al. for Permission to Appeal, July 15, 2026, paras. 2, 11–12. The DIP lenders applied on August 19 to be added as parties, over some applicants' opposition. The Court of Appeal has set the leave applications, and the lenders' application to intervene, for October 21, per the Tenth Report, paras. 60–61.

Counterparties to the supply and transportation agreements met the company, its chief restructuring officer and the monitor in Miami from September 15 to 17; the monitor calls the discussions constructive, but after two days nothing was agreed, per the Tenth Report, para. 54.

What Colombia's regulators told the Superintendency

On or about August 18 the Superintendency asked the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the gas regulator CREG, the ANH and the SSPD for their technical and regulatory views on recognition. The monitor, as foreign representative, wrote to each of them on August 24 so that their answers would carry "the full and accurate context" of the Canadian proceeding. The replies, as the monitor summarizes them, all expressed concern, per the Tenth Report, paras. 45–47.

CREG said Colombian regulation requires mandatory compensation payments for breaches of gas supply agreements, that terminating contracts serving residential, small commercial and vehicular users would be contrary to the efficient provision of public services, and that short-term alternatives depend on supply and pipeline capacity that are both constrained. The SSPD said the termination was "not attributable exclusively to a generalized physical shortage of gas," pointing to gas Canacol supplied to Celsia Colombia S.A. E.S.P. in July and August under interruptible and purchase-option contracts whose triggering mechanisms had not been activated, and recommended that the Superintendency weigh how available gas is being allocated, per the Tenth Report, paras. 48–49.

The Ministry raised supply shortages and higher tariffs on the Caribbean coast, possible effects on thermal plants supporting the electricity system, and the gap between Canacol's declared production potential and its actual 2026 production and deliveries, and recommended a transition period or a substitute-supply plan to avoid "greater social, economic, and public-order consequences, including generalized social unrest." The ANH warned that termination would affect the commerciality and classification of Canacol's reserves and reduce royalties. The Gas Market Manager, reporting at the Ministry's request, found that Canacol's deliveries from January to August 2026 were "only a fraction" of its contracted volumes, and that if the contracts were terminated the company could not sign new firm supply until the next regulatory window because this year's declaration deadline has passed; until then only short-term or interruptible sales would be open to it, per the Tenth Report, paras. 50–52.

After Colombia's elections brought in new officials, the monitor and Canacol met the SSPD, the ANH, the Energy Vice-Minister and the Superintendency in person between September 2 and 4, per the Tenth Report, para. 57.

The lenders' conditions

The DIP lenders are holders of Canacol's US$495,000,000 of 5.75% senior unsecured notes due 2028 and members of the ad hoc committee of those noteholders. Under the third amended and restated commitment letter, approved in the Fourth ARIO on April 24, the facility stood at US$112,000,000, of which a US$45,000,000 delayed-draw tranche (Tranche A-2) was to arrive in three advances. Only the first, US$15,000,000 on April 29, was made. The second was due within five days of the May 4 bid deadline and the third by June 15, and both were conditioned on the disclaimers, per Affidavit #12 of Jason Bednar, Sept. 17, 2026, paras. 7, 25–31. A first amending agreement of June 30 extended maturity to September 30 for a US$1,800,000 fee paid July 2, per the Bednar Affidavit #12, paras. 33–37. Justice Marion extended the stay to September 30 on July 9, sealed the unredacted amendment and reserved approval of the monitor's Ninth Report, per the Stay Extension Order, July 9, 2026, paras. 3–5; the court released reasons on September 15 granting that approval, with the order in process, per the Tenth Report, para. 17.