The restructuring of Sanjel Corporation and its affiliates (previously discussed here) continues to provide interesting developments on the application and interpretation of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.
On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).
On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.
It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.
The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.
In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.
In the recent unreported decision of Alberta Treasury Branches v. Northpine Energy Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta authorized a disposition of a debtor’s assets by a receiver immediately upon appointment and without being forced to conduct a marketing process within the receivership proceedings.