Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) allow the realization of value from assets of a debtor company in circumstances where a traditional transaction model is not effective, preserving the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be transferred to a purchaser. Two recent decisions demonstrate the willingness of courts to embrace creative solutions, where appropriate, to realize value for stakeholders.
What is a Reverse Vesting Order?
The interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings has been a recurring theme across common law jurisdictions in recent months. It is therefore timely to consider the conflict between parties' contractual rights to arbitrate and their statutory rights to present a winding up petition and how a balance can be struck when determining which should prevail.
Introduction
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released a decision in Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.’s (“Bellatrix”) proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), in which the Court dismissed Bellatrix’s appeal of the lower court’s decision that certain agreements (the “Contract”) between Bellatrix and BP Canada Energy Group ULC (“BP”) constituted an eligible financial contract (“EFC”).
At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, provincial emergency orders required the majority of businesses to migrate their workforce to a work-from-home environment. As the pandemic has persisted, what was originally a short-term solution for many businesses, has led many of them to reconsider their current and future need for office space. For those businesses tied into long-term leases, many have turned to subleasing all or a portion of their space as a way to reduce their overhead.
The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.
A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.1 The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Introduction
A recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has confirmed that, whilst the courts of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) will recognise the appointment of foreign representatives (including liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy) as having status in the BVI in accordance with his or her appointment by a foreign court, they may only provide assistance to representatives from certain designated countries.
Many commercial landlords are increasingly alarmed that COVID-19 may cause a surge in tenant bankruptcies or restructurings. We outline below the major issues for landlords arising from tenant defaults and insolvencies and suggest best practices to minimize losses.
Many commercial landlords are increasingly alarmed that COVID-19 may cause a surge in tenant bankruptcies or restructurings. We outline below the major issues for landlords arising from tenant defaults and insolvencies and suggest best practices to minimize losses.
The Ontario Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) released its decision in 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 681 on October 28, 2020. The Court of Appeal clarified the law regarding a landlord’s entitlement to draw on a letter of credit where the underlying lease has been disclaimed by a trustee. Overturning the lower court decision, the Court of Appeal held the landlord was entitled draw down on the entire principal of the letter of credit pursuant to its terms and the terms of the disclaimed lease between the parties.