CVAs are a useful tool in the restructuring tool kit, and may prove extremely helpful to retailers or hospitality companies as a means of supporting those businesses as they emerge from the pandemic. The flexibility of a CVA and the ability to shape the terms of a proposal to meet the specific needs of a business have seen an increasing number of consumer led businesses use CVAs, and they have become popular as a means to restructure businesses that have a significant lease portfolio.
Following our previous alert that considered rent reductions and modifications to lease terms post New Look and Regis, this alert considers what those CVA challenge cases tell landlords about calculating a landlord's claim for voting purposes and the disclosure requirements.
From 30 April 2021, an administrator will be unable to complete a sale of a substantial part of a company's property to a connected person within the first eight weeks of the administration without either:
- The approval of creditors
- An independent written opinion (positive or negative)
This alert considers the impact of the new regulations in practice, which apply to both pre-packs and post-packs that take place within eight weeks of an administrator's appointment.
When is an evaluator's report required?
On March 30, 2021, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the Court) made an initial order under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA) in respect of EncoreFX Inc. (EncoreFX) one year after the commencement of its bankruptcy proceedings. The decision is unusual in that the applicant for the CCAA initial order was EncoreFX’s trustee in bankruptcy (the Trustee), who also sought to be appointed as monitor of EncoreFX (with enhanced powers). On April 22, 2021, the Court released the reasons for its decision.1
From 30 April 2021, an administrator will be unable to complete a sale of a substantial part of a company's property to a connected person within the first eight weeks of the administration without either:
- The approval of creditors
- An independent written opinion (positive or negative)
This alert considers the impact of the new regulations in practice, which apply to both pre-packs and post-packs that take place within eight weeks of an administrator's appointment.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was published on 20 May 2020 and introduced a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill went through the House of Commons on 3 June and passed through the House of Lords on 23 June. The Bill was back before the House of Commons today and is likely to receive Royal Assent next week (at which point the Bill will become law).
As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.
As set out in the first blog in this series, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern.
On 20 May 2020, the UK Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) to the House of Commons. The Bill introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill is currently only in draft form and therefore amendments may be made. It is anticipated that the legislation will come into force by the end of June 2020.
This blog (the first in a series of blogs about this new measure) outlines the key provisions of the moratorium and how it will work.
In the recent decision of British Columbia Attorney General v Quinsam Coal Corporation, 2020 BCSC 640 (Quinsam), the British Columbia Supreme Court (the Court) considered the priority between a debtor’s environmental liabilities and a secured creditor. In its analysis, the Court extensively discussed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater). In reference to Redwater, the Court posed the following question: