On March 25, 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 111. Briefly, the Court held that abandonment and reclamation obligations (ARO) of oil and gas assets operate to depress the value of those assets for the purposes of fraudulent preferences legislation, notwithstanding that they are not provable claims in bankruptcy. The Court also held that serial summary dismissal applications on different grounds are an abuse of process.

Regulatory obligations often conflict with bankruptcy law. It has long been considered a necessary benefit that people get a fresh start through bankruptcy. The law provides for exceptions to this principle, on the basis of equally important public policy grounds that certain penalties and obligations should not be so easily avoided.

We previously discussed the Court's decision in Yukon (Government of) v Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2020 YKSC 16, which opened the door to partial termination of agreements in a receivership, an action generally considered to not be permitted in the past.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in Dal Bianco v Deem Management Services Limited, 2020 ONCA 585 [Dal Bianco] is the most recent pronouncement on resolving procedural conflicts between the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC, 1985, c B-3 (BIA) and provincial enactments.

It has long been the law that termination of contracts is permissible under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) with the effect of the termination being to create an unsecured claim for damages in place of the contract. What has not been permitted is allowing insolvent companies to pick and choose parts of an agreement to terminate. Following a recent decision arising out of receivership proceedings in the Yukon, it may now in some circumstances be possible to terminate parts of an agreement.

Many businesses are—or soon will be—unable to meet their obligations. Not all businesses in distress are unsuccessful; sometimes, as in the economic circumstances arising from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the governmental directives tailored to address the related public health issues, even successful businesses must confront closures and steep declines in demand that could not have been anticipated, and may find it necessary or desirable to restructure their existing debt obligations.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

The Alberta Energy Regulator's Statutory Power is Not in Conflict With the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.