This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision which validated dispositions of property made by a company after the winding up began.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 8 May 2017, Bond J ordered that a coal exploration company (the Company) be wound up on just and equitable grounds following a shareholder oppression claim. So as to avoid the consequences of a liquidation, his Honour immediately stayed that order for a period of 7 days to enable the warring parties a final chance to resolve their differences.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Federal Court where a special purpose liquidator was appointed to investigate suspected illegal phoenix activity.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The company formerly known as Intelara Pty Ltd (Intelara) was wholly owned by and had common directors with Intelara Holdings Pty Ltd (Holdings). The directors of both companies were also the shareholders of Holdings.
A five judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed an appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124 (“Redwater”). The case has been one of the most closely watched by the Canadian oil and gas industry in decades.
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.
This week’s TGIF considers Australian Worldwide Pty Ltd v AW Exports Pty Ltd where the Court awarded security for costs against plaintiff companies in liquidation, despite a litigation funder’s indemnity against adverse costs.
Background
The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal brought by the Alberta Energy Regulator and the Orphan Well Association from the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation. A majority of the panel held that the provisions of the provincial legislation governing certain actions of licensees of oil and gas assets do not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act over provincial legislation where the governing provisions conflict.
On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].1 In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.
As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank
In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.
Canadian restructuring and liquidation legislation provides struggling companies and bankruptcy trustees with powerful tools to restructure their affairs and maximize value for stakeholders. For example, in the right circumstances valuable contracts can be assigned, on notice to the counterparties, to buyers prepared to pay well for the rights conferred under the contracts. In such circumstances, the counterparty’s bargained for right to withhold its consent to an assignment can be effectively overridden by court order.