This is part three of a series focusing on current M&A trends, opportunities and challenges

This is the first part of a two-part series

Commercial tenant bankruptcies and COVID-19

In the recent decision of British Columbia Attorney General v Quinsam Coal Corporation, 2020 BCSC 640 (Quinsam), the British Columbia Supreme Court (the Court) considered the priority between a debtor’s environmental liabilities and a secured creditor. In its analysis, the Court extensively discussed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater). In reference to Redwater, the Court posed the following question:

In Toronto-Dominion Bank v Canada,¹ the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) upheld the Federal Court’s decision² that the Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) was required to pay to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) proceeds of $67,854 for unremitted GST that TD received as repayment from a borrower upon the discharge of a TD mortgage.

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its reasons for the decision rendered in 9354-9816 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al on January 23, 2020. The SCC unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision, reinstating an order allowing third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings.

Background

These are unprecedented and uncertain times. Everywhere, the COVID-19 pandemic has strained revenue streams and asset prices, shaken investor and consumer confidence, and caused overall financial conditions to deteriorate. Everyone is asking the same question: How do we deal with the financial fallout of COVID-19?

In many cases, parties are working together to overcome these financial challenges, preserve value and navigate a mutually beneficial path forward.

Less than three weeks after the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the Effects of the COVID-19 Infectious Disease Epidemic on Citizens and the Economy Act (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo; the “Intervention Act”) came into force, new amendments are on their way.

Slimming down a company, corporate and financial restructuring will be on minds of many managers and company owners in the coming months.

In practice, when deciding to wind down a company, often a decision needs to be made whether to trigger a regular wind-down (likvidacija), a fast-track wind-down (prenehanje družbe po skrajšanem postopku) or a bankruptcy proceeding (stečaj). The main goal usually is to close down the company with less cost and no liability for the shareholder or the management.

1. What to address first

All insolvency proceedings (bankruptcy, and compulsory settlement) and court-sponsored financial restructurings (preventivna prestrukturiranja) in Slovenia are on hold until the recall of the COVID-19 epidemic (proceedings are currently expected to be on hold until 1 July 2020) (the "Recall"). During this time courts will not conduct the above-mentioned proceedings and no procedural and material deadlines will run.

Barely any region, sector or business remains unaffected by the exponentially growing pandemic. Stock market values, and thus also valuations for private companies, are plummeting due to the existing uncertainties.

Against this background, the question arises of how to deal with signed share or asset purchase agreements, if closing is still imminent. From the buyer's point of view, a valuation from the time before the COVID 19 crisis may now appear very expensive. The pandemic may trigger not only contractual provisions but also various legal remedies.