The Canadian Parliament has enacted (subject to the final stage of Royal Assent) significant changes to federal insolvency legislation, elevating the priority that must be provided to fund the deficit of a defined benefit pension plan when distributing debtor assets. Bill C-228, the Pension Protection Act (the “Act”), is an Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.

Many cryptocurrency lenders have declared bankruptcy. These loss events are indicators of the significant losses the cryptocurrency market has experienced this year.

For investors who have suffered, an important consideration is how to capitalize on these losses. Accordingly, this article will analyze the recent Celsius Network (“Celsius”) bankruptcy and the tax strategy of writing off bad debt.

The Celsius Bankruptcy

In the recent decision of Chin v Beauty Express Canada Inc. (“Chin”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the impact of an employee’s service with a prior employer on the employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice of termination.

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal invalidated an arbitration and forum selection clause in a commercial agreement in favour of having a dispute between the debtor and its former customer adjudicated within a receivership proceeding.

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.

Introduction

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

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?