On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].1 In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.
As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank
In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.
Does section 127 of the Insolvency Act 1986 void payments made by the insolvent company’s bank after the presentation of a winding-up petition but pursuant to payment instructions issued by the company before presentation of the petition?
The serious consequences of an adjudication of bankruptcy against an individual has long justified the strict requirement that bankruptcy petitions be personally served. Rule 6.14 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 requires as much, and says that ‘service shall be effected by delivering to [the debtor] a sealed copy of the petition’. But what constitutes delivery where the debtor declines to accept the petition from the process server?
The applicant applied to strike out a winding up petition that had been presented against it. The parties had entered into two construction contracts under which the applicant had subcontracted the fabrication and erection of steelworks to the respondent in relation to two separate sites. The contracts failed to provide an adequate mechanism for payment such that the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (as amended) (HGCRA 1996) and the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 (as amended) applied.
Picard, a trustee in bankruptcy, launched proceedings under the anti-avoidance provisions of the US Bankruptcy Code against Vizcaya, a BVI investment fund which had invested approximately $330m with Bernard Madoff via his New York firm. Prior to his fraud being discovered in late 2008, Vizcaya had been repaid $180m.Picard obtained a judgment against Vizcaya and its shareholders in the New York Bankruptcy Court. The judgment against Vizcaya was for $180m, $74m of which had been transferred to its Gibraltar holdings.
OTL was placed into compulsory liquidation. Prior to this it transferred monies to a trust located in HK of which N was perceived to be the principal trustee. The OR as liquidator applied for an order under s 236(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that N produce a witness statement with supporting documents in relation to the company’s affairs. The primary question for HHJ Hodge QC was whether s 236(3) of the IA 1986 could have extra-territorial effect as N was resident in HK.
Held
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding at trial of HHJ Bird (sitting in the High Court) that save where there is fraud, a debtor is not legally obliged to volunteer information to an assignee regarding his arrangement with the assignor. The dispute arose because Bibby, a factor (and ‘Assignee’), purchased debts from Morleys Ltd (‘the Assignor’), owed to it by HFD Ltd and MCD Ltd (the ‘Customers’/‘Debtors’). The contract between the Assignor and Customers was such that the latter were entitled to a rebate, at the beginning of each calendar year, on purchases made.