In a recent unreported decision denying approval of a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) proposed by Connacher Oil and Gas Limited, Justice C.M. Jones of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the solvency test that corporations must meet in order to obtain a final order approving a plan of arrangement under the CBCA1.

An insolvent entity will often have one or more businesses that, once separated from the insolvent organization or cleansed of their existing liabilities, is quite attractive acquisition targets.

Around 33,000 UK-based pensioners of the Nortel group  look set to receive a greater share of the group’s $7bn worldwide assets, following a joint allocation hearing in the US and Canadian courts. This should mitigate earlier difficulties encountered in trying to use the Pensions Regulator’s anti- avoidance powers to recover monies from non-UK companies.

The decision may also have wider implications for unsecured lenders to a company which is part of a multi-jurisdictional group headquartered in the US or Canada.

WHAT WAS THE BACKGROUND TO THIS?

The biggest insolvency in national retailing history, Target stores’ Canadian subsidiary, is scheduled to take key steps on the road to resolution this month and over the summer.

Target Canada applied for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) last January 15 so that it could restructure and liquidate. It then closed all its 133 stores, eliminating the jobs of more than 14,000 employees and leaving its landlords and almost 1,800 other suppliers on the hook for close to $3 billion. 

Nortel Networks Corporation was a telecommunications firm that filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) in 2009. At the time, a large number of interrelated companies representing the global business operations of Nortel also filed for protection, including Nortel Networks Limited (“NNL”), its direct Canadian subsidiary and legal owner of the Nortel Group’s worldwide patent portfolio.

Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Blaneys on Business Bulletin: June 2015

The courts in Ontario and Delaware have decided who is to be paid what from the more than $7.1 billion available to meet creditors’ claims in the Nortel Networks insolvency, closing the 120-year-old book on Canada’s first global research, development and technology enterprise.

In Akagi v. Synergy Group (2000) Inc. (“Akagi“), the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a series of ex parte orders made by Toronto’s Commercial List Court granting broad investigative powers to a court-appointed receiver.

What is a Stalking Horse?

In the distressed M&A context, a stalking horse refers to a potential purchaser participating in a stalking horse auction who agrees to acquire the assets or business of an insolvent debtor as a going concern. In a stalking horse auction of an insolvent business, a preliminary bid by the stalking horse bidder is disclosed to the market and becomes the minimum bid, or floor price, that other parties can then outbid. 

In early 2015, 9171665 Canada Ltd. and Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. (together Connacher) applied to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (Court) for a final order pursuant to section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for the approval of a plan of arrangement to restructure Connacher (Arrangement). On April 2, 2015, Justice C.M. Jones rejected Connacher's restructuring proposal for the reasons set out below.

Avant de rendre sa décision, la Cour fait état de la « controverse jurisprudentielle » quant à la nécessité de signifier au préalable les préavis d’exercice du droit hypothécaire du Code civil du Québec avant d’être autorisé à procéder à une vente d’actifs en vertu de l’article 243 LFI. Trois (3) décisions en ce sens ont été rendues par la Cour du district de Saint-François à ce sujet, alors qu’une (1) décision rendue dans le district de Montréal est à l’effet contraire.