Creditors want to recover as much money as they can from their debtors as quickly and painlessly as possible. When those debtors take steps to delay, defeat and hinder a creditor’s recovery, creditors can rely on the Fraudulent Preference Act, RSBC 1996, c. 164 (“FPA”) and the Fraudulent Conveyance Act, RSBC 1996, c. 163 (“FCA”) to set aside transactions that have that intention and effect. Generally, the FCA allows “creditors and others” to void dispositions of property designed to delay, hinder or defraud their claims.

When a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease, one of the lessor’s immediate questions is who will be the assignee. But what happens when a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease and waits up to two years thereafter to determine who the assignee will be? Although peculiar, the analysis of whether to grant the assumption rests on evaluating the three basic requirements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Last month the Delaware Chancery Court sent a clear message to Delaware companies that failure to strictly comply with the Delaware Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (“ABC”) statute will result in severe consequences, including dismissal.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA has issued a consultation about proposed changes to its Guidance for Insolvency Practitioners. The aim is to clarify existing guidance and provide more information to insolvency practitioners (IPs) on how to deal with regulated firms.

In my most recent blog post, I provided some tips for creditors who find themselves in the Subchapter V arena. This is somewhat of a follow-up to that one.

As discussed in our prior blog entitled “New York’s Sovereign Debt Restructuring Proposals,”[1] three bills were introduced in the New York state legislature to overhaul the way sovereign debt restructurings are handled in New York. Those bills sought to implement a comprehensive mechanism for restructuring sovereign debt, limit recovery on certain sovereign debt claims, and amend the champerty defense.

Overview

In the recent decision of Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v NewGrange Energy Inc, 2024 ABKB 214 (“NewGrange”), the Alberta Court of King’s Bench clarified when gross overriding royalties (“GOR”) can be vested out of a debtor company’s estate pursuant to a reverse vesting order (“RVO”). The Court allowed GORs to be vested off under the Applicant’s, Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership (“Invico”), proposed RVO, finding the GORs to be mere contractual rights and not proper interests in land.

As seen in the recent proliferation of bankruptcy cases seeking a structured dismissal or conversion after a successful sale, debtors constantly seek creative and efficient ways to wind up a case, including through a traditional plan of liquidation. Yet, as discussed below, debtors must ensure that any proposed voting procedures for a plan comply with section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, or are at least supported by, or supportable with, prior precedent.

While there is a statutory requirement to register most forms of security granted by limited companies incorporated in the UK at Companies House, it is worth remembering that there is no statutory requirement for the holder of registered security to inform Companies House if, e.g., the debt secured by a registered charge has been satisfied.

Following our previous alert, in which we highlighted an issue with entries relating to registered security maintained at Companies House being incorrectly updated to indicate that they had in fact been discharged without the aware