The BC Court of Appeal has confirmed the jurisdiction for Canadian courts to make reverse vesting orders (“RVO”) in receivership proceedings. British Columbia v.
BP Canada Energy Group ULC (“BP”) has applied for leave to appeal a decision under section 13 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) and for a stay of the orders rendered by Justice Yamauchi on April 24, 2024
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.
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.
Case Trends
In the recent decision of Ontario Securities Commission v Go-To Developments Holdings Inc et al, 2023 ONSC 5921 (“Go-To Developments”), the Court affirmed a receiver’s ability to control solicitor-client privilege in order to perform their mandate. The Court specifically considered whether a receiver could access email correspondence between the principal of the companies under receivership and other interested parties.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case
Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.
However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.
This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether text messages can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on “prerecorded voice” messages, and it considers whether debtors who paid statutory fees under an unconstitutionally nonuniform bankruptcy provision are entitled to a refund.