Readers will recall, on April 1, 2020 the RF President signed RF Law No. 98-FZ, amending RF Law No. 127-FZ On Insolvency (Bankruptcy) of October 26, 2002 (the Law) and authorising the Government to impose a moratorium on creditors’ initiation of bankruptcies to stabilize the economy in exceptional cases (a Moratorium).

Immediately thereafter, by Decree No. 428 of April 3, 2020 as part of the COVID-19 relief program, the Government adopted such a Moratorium until 7 January 2021 (the COVID Moratorium).

Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) have become an increasingly popular and useful tool for maximizing recovery in complex insolvencies in Canada, particularly in circumstances where traditional alternatives of asset sales or restructuring plans are not effective or practical. RVOs are very attractive to purchasers of distressed businesses because they can efficiently preserve the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be easily transferred to a purchaser through an asset transaction.

A limitation period is the statutory time limit set out in law for a person to file a lawsuit as a result of some loss or damage. Each Canadian province has a specific statutory framework governing limitation periods for legal matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces use a “discoverability” scheme under which a person must commence legal proceedings within two years of specific factual elements being “discovered” by the person.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.

In this article, Dentons gives its inside view on the pre-pack evaluator's report, made compulsory earlier this year to improve the confidence of creditors in pre-pack administration sales to connected persons. We consider the practicalities of selecting the right evaluator for the job, the potential for "opinion shopping" from evaluators and whether these new regulations have achieved what was intended.

A recap on pre-packs

Executive summary

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada v.Canada North Group Inc.[1] provided much needed clarity regarding the order of priority for unremitted source deductions in restructuring proceedings.

Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Carillion Canada Inc. (Re), the Court held that an automatic cash sweep of Carillion’s Ontario bank account rid the funds of their trust character leaving Carillion’s subcontractors in Canada with no proprietary claim to $22 million sitting in an overseas bank account maintained with a global bank (the “Bank”).

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 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”).