A recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) brought to the fore the role of fairness opinions in solvent arrangement transactions. In Re ChampionIron Mines Limited (Champion) the court approved the arrangement but deemed the fairness opinion inadmissible on the basis that it failed to disclose the reasons underlying its conclusion.

In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11

A Summary

In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.

On October 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two significant decisions1 on the interplay between provincial environmental remediation and federal insolvency orders. The cases are of interest to environmental and insolvency lawyers across Canada. They are equally of interest to taxpayers who foot remediation costs shifted through insolvency.

Background

An “Administration Charge” under the CCAA

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (“CCAA”) permits a court having jurisdiction over proceedings for the restructuring of an insolvent company to make certain orders, to secure payment of the fees of certain officials involved in those proceedings, including the Monitor of the insolvent company appointed for the restructuring proceeding.

A surprising judgment re the “Administration Charge”

Punj Lloyd Ltd (PLL), the ultimate parent of Simon Carves Ltd (SCL), provided 'letters of support' (what would in North America be called 'comfort letters') indicating to the board of SCL that PLL would 'provide the necessary financial and business support to ensure that [SCL] continues as a going concern'. This is precisely what SCL did not do: it went into administration, leaving invoices unpaid and unsecured creditors largely out of luck.

Government bonds were long considered a safe investment that offered the potential for high returns. However, after Argentina announced in 2002 that it would no longer service its bond debt and after Greece restructured its sovereign debt in March and December 2012, the question arises as to what investors can do to avoid the significant losses of capital (up to 70% in case of Argentina and over 80% in case of Greece) which almost always accompany sovereign debt restructurings.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) continued with its extensive interpretation of the rules for contesting transactions under insolvency law in a judgment dated 21 February 2013 (BGH IX ZR 32/12). In the case before the court, direct shareholder A in company T sold a claim under a loan to B at below par value. Following assignment, T repaid the loan to B at the nominal amount plus interest. Insolvency proceedings were opened around two months later in relation to T’s assets. The BGH’s decision covers three aspects:

A. Bill of the “Law on shielding credit institutions and financial groups against risks and planning their restructuring and winding-up”

In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.

Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).