Introduction

Reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have evolved from a creative restructuring tool used sparingly under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) into a flexible instrument increasingly considered in receivership and other insolvency proceedings. The past two years have seen Canadian courts (particularly in British Columbia) grapple with whether, and in what circumstances, an RVO can be justified under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

We were approached by a company to assist with its restructuring. Our client’s biggest problem was that its largest unsecured creditor was also its main supplier. Approximately 80% of the client’s business depended on the products supplied by this supplier. This would not be a problem if the client and the supplier had an ongoing agreement to continue to supply, but there was no such agreement. The supplier could cut our client off at any time and had no legal obligation to continue to accept our client’s business.