Litigation funding can play an important role in allowing liquidators to recover debts on behalf of liquidated companies, where there may be a real prospect of success in recovery proceedings but where obstacles such as funding or security for costs may present themselves.

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.

InAustralian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (no 9) [2021] FCA 1306 the Administrators brought an interlocutory application seeking remuneration orders pursuant to section 60-10(1)(c) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPSC) for the administration of the second defendant. The application was opposed by the Liquidators of the second defendant.

In Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2),[1] the NSW Supreme Court handed down judgment in two proceedings (which were heard together) arising from the failure of Arrium and its broader corporate group.

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.

In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.

What happened?

Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up.

Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No. 2) (Substar No. 2) considers the Court’s discretionary power to terminate the winding up of a company pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Substar No. 2 follows the decision of Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2020] FCA 1863(Substar (No. 1), which considered the extent to which liquidators can realise trust assets when a corporate trustee enters into liquidation.

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”).