A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal invalidated an arbitration and forum selection clause in a commercial agreement in favour of having a dispute between the debtor and its former customer adjudicated within a receivership proceeding.
The recent decision of the High Court in Fistonich & Anor v Gibson & Ors [2022] NZHC 1422 considered whether receivers have a right to retain surplus funds to meet the cost of defending actual or forecast claims against the receivers.
Background
The case involves the sale of the business and land associated with Villa Maria winery, which was owned and operated through Villa Maria Estate Ltd and established 60 years ago by Sir George Fistonich. FFWL Ltd was the holding company of Villa Maria Estate Ltd.
Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) have become an increasingly popular and useful tool for maximizing recovery in complex insolvencies in Canada, particularly in circumstances where traditional alternatives of asset sales or restructuring plans are not effective or practical. RVOs are very attractive to purchasers of distressed businesses because they can efficiently preserve the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be easily transferred to a purchaser through an asset transaction.
On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.
The importance of subcontractors scrutinising how retention funds are held, and how they are dealt with by insolvency practitioners, was highlighted in the recent High Court decision in McVeigh v Decmil Australia Pty Limited & Anor [2021] NZHC 2929 (Decmil). The liquidator sought an order from the Court to be appointed as receiver of the retentions fund.
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”).
Liquidators have wide-ranging powers under the Companies Act 1993 (Companies Act), including the power to request directors, shareholders or any other relevant person to assist in the liquidation of a company.
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”).