Courts Now Have More Discretion Regarding Plans of Arrangement Under Alberta's Amended Business Corporations Act

One of the main benefits to a purchaser who buys oil and gas assets in a proceeding under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act or a receivership is the near-absolute quieting of title via a "vesting order." In Manitok Energy Inc (Re), the Alberta Court of Appeal confirmed the importance and effect of Sale App

In a decision that may encourage continued sales from suppliers to distressed entities, the Eleventh Circuit in Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC1 joined the Third Circuit,2 the only other circuit to directly address the issue, in concluding that post-petition payments for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the petition date, authorized by 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(9), do not reduce a creditor's "subsequent new value" preference defense.

I. Preferences in a Nutshell

Stoneway was advised in its CBCA proceedings by a team including: Kevin Zych, Michael S. Shakra and Joshua Foster (Restructuring & Insolvency); Richard Swan (Litigation); Kristopher Hanc (Capital Markets); Thomas Bauer and Philip Ward (Tax); and Preet K. Gill (Complex Legal Issues and Opinions).

Introduction

On March 25, 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc v Perpetual Energy Inc, 2022 ABCA 111. Briefly, the Court held that abandonment and reclamation obligations (ARO) of oil and gas assets operate to depress the value of those assets for the purposes of fraudulent preferences legislation, notwithstanding that they are not provable claims in bankruptcy. The Court also held that serial summary dismissal applications on different grounds are an abuse of process.

The corporate attribution doctrine concerns the attribution of the actions of a corporation’s directing mind to the corporation itself. On March 10, 2022, in Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino [Aquino], the Court of Appeal released what it described as a decision of first impression in which the Court considered the doctrine in the bankruptcy and insolvency context.

A bankruptcy court’s recent decision in Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co., et al. v. Republic Bus. Credit (In re Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co.), Adv. No. 16-03025-SGJ (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021) serves as a reminder for lenders that they should avoid certain actions when dealing with distressed borrowers. Specifically, in Bailey, a bankruptcy judge found a lender squarely at fault for its borrower’s bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation, and held the lender liable to the borrower’s bankruptcy estate for various breach of contract, tort, and bankruptcy claims.

Within the past 18 months, two bankruptcy courts have used the same factors, but reached opposite conclusions, about the characterization of two merchant cash advance funding transactions as either a “true sale” or not a “true sale” – and instead, a disguised financing. In doing so, the courts’ decisions confirm the importance of appropriate structuring to achieve true sale treatment.

Regulatory obligations often conflict with bankruptcy law. It has long been considered a necessary benefit that people get a fresh start through bankruptcy. The law provides for exceptions to this principle, on the basis of equally important public policy grounds that certain penalties and obligations should not be so easily avoided.

In an underreported amendment to the Bankruptcy Code, the Small Business Reorganization Act amended §547(b) of the Code to add an explicit requirement for the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to conduct “reasonable due diligence” before filing a preference action. The apparent goal of this amendment to the Bankruptcy Code is to reduce the number of frivolous preference lawsuits pursued by trustees.