Questions en litige
Est ce qu’une créance relative à un solde de prix de vente d’actions, initialement due par une des deux entités ayant fusionné pour devenir la débitrice, constitue une réclamation relative à des capitaux propres au sens de l’article 2 (1) de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité1 (ci après la « LFI ») dans le cadre de la proposition de cette même débitrice?
Le cas échéant, quelles sont les conséquences pour le Vendeur?
Trame factuelle
On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.
In Her Majesty the Queen v. Canada North Group Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada (the Court) held that lower courts can permit the grant of court ordered charges under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (the CCAA), including the interim lender’s charge, in priority to the Minister of National Revenue’s (the Minister) statutory deemed trust claims under the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985 c 1 (the ITA).
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”).
On June 17, 2021, the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) dismissed two companion appeals in the receivership proceedings of Accel Canada Holdings Limited (Holdings) and Accel Energy Canada Limited (Energy and together with Holdings, Accel).
On March 30, 2021, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the Court) made an initial order under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA) in respect of EncoreFX Inc. (EncoreFX) one year after the commencement of its bankruptcy proceedings. The decision is unusual in that the applicant for the CCAA initial order was EncoreFX’s trustee in bankruptcy (the Trustee), who also sought to be appointed as monitor of EncoreFX (with enhanced powers). On April 22, 2021, the Court released the reasons for its decision.1
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”).
Since our last update in October 2019, there have been many interesting developments in the area of environmental law. The COVID-19 pandemic, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, and climate change were key topics that shaped judicial, legislative, and policy changes in British Columbia and across Canada. With respect to judicial developments, disputes over natural resource projects, contaminated sites, environmental prosecutions, as well as judicial review or appeal decisions arising from environmental regulatory bodies, brought many changes to the landscape of environmental law.