On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.
Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.
In an unprecedented turn of events, two recent proceedings in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands considered the same complex legal issues just one week apart.
2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343
On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.[1]
A Cayman Islands scheme of arrangement is a court approved compromise or arrangement between a company and its creditors or shareholders (or classes thereof). A scheme of arrangement is frequently used to implement a financial restructuring by varying or cramming in the rights of the relevant creditors and/or shareholders of a company but may also be used to complete corporate transactions such as a group restructuring or reorganisation, acquisitions, mergers and take-private transactions.
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands recently confirmed expressly for the first time that it has jurisdiction to wind up a segregated portfolio company ("SPC") on the insolvency of one or more, but not all, of its segregated portfolios, and to appoint restructuring officers over those segregated portfolios. The judgment is In the matter of Holt Fund SPC
Background
The Supreme Court of NSW refused to validate the appointment of a voluntary administrator (Administrator) to Premier Energy Resources Pty Ltd (Company) under section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) after the Administrator failed to investigate allegations of fraud surrounding his appointment.
Cooper as liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Ltd (in liq) v CEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 6
A Members Voluntary Liquidation ("MVL") is a process undertaken by a solvent company to wind up its affairs in an orderly manner when the company has concluded its activities and the shareholders wish to distribute the remaining assets amongst themselves.
To avail of a MVL, the company must be solvent i.e. the directors must be able to execute a statutory declaration that they are of the opinion that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within 12 months of the commencement of the winding up.
The steps involved
Commonwealth of Australia v Tonks [2023] NSWCA 285
In this decision, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW considered the interplay between the priority regimes under ss 556 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in resolving a contest between a liquidator’s claim for remuneration and the entitlements of former employees to be paid out of circulating assets.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision of Justice Black in finding that: