On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.

It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.

The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.

In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.

On 30 September 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) published its finding that two companies involved in the online retail of licensed sport and entertainment posters and frames had breached the Competition Act 1998 (“CA98”) by entering into agreements (or, at least, ‘concerted practices’) to artificially inflate the prices charged for certain products. A formal charge was accepted by the main protagonist, Trod Limited (in administration) (“Trod”) and fines imposed, which became payable by Trod’s administrators as of 13 October 2016.

Horton v Henry: Pensions clarified

We previously discussed the uncertainty surrounding the treatment of pensions in a bankruptcy which arose from two conflicting high court decisions: Raithatha v Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch) and Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch).

In Hinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH) (where this firm successfully represented the trustee in bankruptcy, Lloyd Hinton of Insolve Plus Limited), the court commented that the approach in Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch) was “plainly correct”.

In the recent unreported decision of Alberta Treasury Branches v. Northpine Energy Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta authorized a disposition of a debtor’s assets by a receiver immediately upon appointment and without being forced to conduct a marketing process within the receivership proceedings.

On April 14, 2016, the priority of statutory trust protections afforded to subcontractors and suppliers under Alberta’s lien legislation was strengthened: the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal in Iona Contractors Ltd. v. Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 ABCA 240, thereby bolstering the priority of the trust even in the face of a bankrupt general contractor.

Both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”)[1] and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act[2] stay actions and remedies as against debtors.

Section 11.4 of the CCAA requires that persons identified as critical suppliers to a debtor company continue to provide goods and services on terms and conditions with the existing supply relationship.