This appeal concerned (inter alia) whether an application for an order for sale made under s.335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA 1986’) should be made by an application notice issued under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (‘IR 2016) or by a Part 8 Claim Form issued under the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’).
Factual Background
Introduction
In Re Bronia, ICC Judge Burton had to consider whether a director could retrospectively re-characterise a director’s loan as ‘drawings’ in order to release the director from liability to the company. ICC Judge Burton concluded that such an approach was impermissible.
Facts
These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.
This summary covers:
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”).
These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.
This summary covers:
1.Re PGH Investments Ltd [2021] EWHC 533 (Ch)
2.Re Mederco (Cardiff) Ltd [2021] EWHC 386 (Ch)
3.Lyle v Bedborough [2021] EWHC 220 (Ch)
4.Re TXU Ltd, Insolvency and Companies Court, 2 March 2021
5.Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 378 (Ch)
Introduction
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The creditors of New Look Retailers Ltd (NLR) approved a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that disproportionately impacted on a number of NLR’s landlords. The compromised landlords challenged the CVA on numerous grounds. In dismissing the application, Mr Justice Zacaroli held that the CVA was valid, notwithstanding that it sought to treat various creditors in different ways, and that challenges pursuant to section 6 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) failed.
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”).