R&I Alert

Restructuring & Insolvency News

October 2018, Issue 3

In This Issue:

• What happens to committee claims when a

case is converted from a chapter 11 case to

a chapter 7 case? 1

• Equitable mootness: alive and well in the

third circuit 1

• Buyer beware: anti-assignment clauses

enforceable under delaware law 2

• Bankruptcy court finds substantive consolidation

of non-debtors not an available remedy in

seventh circuit 3

• A creditor is allowed to be “selfish” when

Obtaining a favourable arbitration award often proves to be only half of the battle. Facing obstructive counterparties refusing to honour awards, often based in jurisdictions where enforcement is slow, difficult and uncertain, is a source of regular frustration to those pursuing claims in arbitration. That is why anyone involved in international trade should be familiar with the variety of measures available to enforce their awards.

In Arrangement relatif à Ferreira, 2018 QCCS 3891 (“Ferreira”), the Quebec Superior Court recently annulled an assignment in bankruptcy that had been filed in Ontario in an attempt to subvert bankruptcy proceedings already underway in Quebec.

The American economy is increasingly dependent upon the importation of merchandise, both raw materials and finished goods. Many of these imported goods are subject to duties imposed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), known as “ordinary duties.” In some situations, supplemental duties such as antidumping and countervailing duties, and now the new duties on aluminum and steel imposed by Executive Order, are also assessed.

With international trade rarely making the news in this era of stable foreign relations and respectful international dialogue, you can be forgiven if you are unaware that Canada has entered several trade agreements that require it to protect trade secrets. But can Canada be forgiven for never actually enacting trade secret legislation? Maybe we can because of Canada’s substitute: the common law action for “breach of confidence”.

Former world number one and three-time Wimbledon champion Boris Becker, who was declared bankrupt by an order dated 21 June 2017, is claiming diplomatic immunity against ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in the High Court. Mr Becker claims his role as sports attaché to the Central African Republic (CAR) makes him immune from further actions against his assets over debts owed to private bank Arbuthnot Latham and other creditors.

These are just a few of the big high street names which have sought to compromise their obligations to creditors in recent months via a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).

CVAs are designed as a flexible method by which companies can seek to contractually alter their position regarding different creditors – each CVA will be different, but it is typical, for example, for unsecured trade creditors to be treated differently to landlords. It’s worth noting that secured creditors are not bound by a CVA, unless they agree to this.

Over the last year, several court decisions have touched on the legislative conflict between taxation authorities and secured creditors in insolvency situations.

A new wave of CVAs?

A company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is, provided the voting thresholds are met, a binding agreement made between a company and its creditors, designed to compromise a company’s obligations to its creditors.

As retailers and restaurateurs across the UK continue to show signs of financial distress, interest in the use of CVAs has increased. A common facet of a CVA is a focus on reducing rents and offloading unprofitable leases.

Compromised or full rent?

In a recent decision that is relevant to oil and gas receiverships, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench lifted a stay of proceedings against an insolvent operator to allow the non-operating party to enforce its right to take over operatorship pursuant to the CAPL 2007 Operating Procedure.