The use of a company name which is the same or similar to the name of an insolvent company is fraught with complications. 

Were you at any stage involved in a company which went into liquidation or administration? Are you now involved in another business with the same or a similar name? If so, you could inadvertently have fallen foul of the criminal and civil liability under Section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986. Joseph Miller explains the pitfalls of this complicated and often overlooked area of insolvency law.

The Government has announced the relaxation of the rules which were put in place in order to restrict the use of winding up petitions during the coronavirus pandemic. The changes, which come into effect on 1 October 2021 and will remain in force until 31 March 2022, are likely to prompt a significant increase in the number of petitions being presented to the court given the ever-increasing level of debt that has accumulated as a result of the pandemic.

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.

There has never been a more disruptive time for business. Brexit and the resultant uncertainty arising from the pandemic have dramatically impacted the business landscape over the last 18 months. No matter what the sector, and no matter how big or small the company, every business has been affected by COVID-19 in some way.

The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021, which came into force on 30 April 2021, introduced several changes to pre-pack sales to connected parties in order to restore public confidence in this type of restructuring deal.

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”).

Pre-packs sales are an important arrangement within Administrations and insolvency law. However, their usage has sometimes been considered “controversial”. In response to criticism and following a recent review of existing industry measures, the Government introduced The Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (“the Regulations”). Coming into force on 30 April 2021, the Regulations will provide a new legal framework for pre-packs.

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.