With the increase in global trade and business, often involving complex corporate structures in multiple jurisdictions, we expect to see a significant increase in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters in coming years. This is especially the case with rapid advancements in technology and digital change driving “borderless” transactions and investments in every industry.
The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“) proceedings involving Carillion Canada and related entities (collectively, “Carillion Canada”) have been an ongoing area of interest for the construction industry since proceedings began in early 2018.
In Chandos Construction v Deloitte Restructuring, the Supreme Court clarified one aspect of bankruptcy law – the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule – while leaving an unsettled area of contract law – the penalty doctrine – to be resolved for another day. Here, we consider the implications of the newly-clarified anti-deprivation rule as it applies to the construction industry.
Background
The governmental restrictions and social customs implemented to combat the spread of COVID-19 have led to significant fallout throughout the economy. Many companies, particularly those with significant retail, hospitality, and personal services operations, may become insolvent and may have to consider their options for avoiding bankruptcy. Creditors looking to recover from insolvent companies may find their claims subject to a debtor’s reorganization proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c-36 (“CCAA“).
Subcontractors may find themselves in a difficult position if an owner or general contractor fails to pay for labour and materials provided to a project. This failure to pay may occur for any number of reasons, but is often a result of a dispute or insolvency. One of the most commonly used methods to mitigate the risk of non-payment by an owner or general contractor is the use of labour and material payment bonds.
A March 8 2016 decision of the influential Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York has attracted attention from – and caused concern for – owners of pipelines and other midstream assets, as well as lenders to midstream and upstream lenders across the United States.
Most due diligence processes in a business acquisition context require a review of material contracts and, in particular, a review of any restrictions on assignment of those contracts.
When a business enters into a long term commercial contract with a customer, the identity of that particular counterparty may influence the terms of the contract. A party deemed more favourable may obtain a better price or better terms. Unless restricted by enforceable anti-assignment provisions, these favourable contracts can be very valuable in a traditional M&A context.