The persisting spectre of the pandemic continues to create uncertainty in the market. Over the last 18 months, insolvency figures remained consistently low due to the government support which has been in place. With the prospect of that support coming to an end there is likely to be a reckoning, but when that will begin is unclear. Overall, this next year is likely to be one of resolving loose ends and tidying up before the economy can take off afresh.

Market outlook

This is the second article in 'Back to Basics', a series of articles looking at insolvency processes in Scotland. This article will examine the court process for sequestration, focusing on petitions by creditors.

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.

This is the first article in 'Back to Basics', a series of articles looking at insolvency processes in Scotland. In this article I examine the court process for winding up a company.

A winding up petition is a form of legal action that can be used when a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due. Sections 122 to 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘the Act’) deal with how to wind up a company in Scotland.

When is a company deemed unable to pay debts?

In the recent Sheriff Court judgment in the case of The Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies, the Sheriff sought to clarify how a family home should be dealt with following the sequestration of an individual.

Background

The debtor was sequestrated in October 2010.

In October 2020, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (‘AiB’) applied to the Sheriff under section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (now section 112 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016) to permit the sale of the debtor’s family home.

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?

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”).

At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, provincial emergency orders required the majority of businesses to migrate their workforce to a work-from-home environment. As the pandemic has persisted, what was originally a short-term solution for many businesses, has led many of them to reconsider their current and future need for office space. For those businesses tied into long-term leases, many have turned to subleasing all or a portion of their space as a way to reduce their overhead.