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

Deal structure matters, particularly in bankruptcy. The Third Circuit recently ruled that a creditor’s right to future royalty payments in a non-executory contract could be discharged in the counterparty-debtor’s bankruptcy. The decision highlights the importance of properly structuring M&A, earn-out, and royalty-based transactions to ensure creditors receive the benefit of their bargain — even (or especially) if their counterparty later encounters financial distress.

Background

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.

In early February, a Delaware bankruptcy judge set new precedent by granting a creditors’ committee derivative standing to pursue breach of fiduciary duty claims against a Delaware LLC’s members and officers. At least three prior Delaware Bankruptcy Court decisions had held that creditors were barred from pursuing such derivative claims by operation of Delaware state law, specifically under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (the “DLLCA”).

A Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court’s recent appellate decision in Blumsack v. Harrington (In re Blumsack) leaves the door open for those employed in the cannabis industry to seek bankruptcy relief where certain conditions are met.

It is a rare occasion that one can be assured with certainty that, if they file a motion with a bankruptcy court, it will be granted. But, in the Third Circuit, that is exactly what will happen if a creditor or other party in interest moves for an examiner to be appointed under Section 1104(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. Once considered to be within the discretion of a bankruptcy court “as is appropriate,” the appointment of an examiner is now guaranteed if the statutory predicates are fulfilled according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.