In a landmark decision released on January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd. that the environmental remediation obligations of a bankrupt oil and gas company must be fulfilled in priority over all other claims, including secured claims. In addition to immediate effects to creditors of Alberta oil and gas interests, creditors of all sectors will want to analyze the implications of this case.

Background

Dans une décision historique rendue dans l’affaire Orphan Well Association c Grant Thornton Ltd. qui a été publiée le 31 janvier 2019, la Cour suprême du Canada (la « CSC ») a conclu que les obligations d’assainissement environnemental d’une société pétrolière et gazière en faillite doivent être satisfaites avant toutes les autres obligations, y compris les obligations garanties. Outre les créanciers du secteur pétrolier et gazier de l’Alberta qui sont directement touchés par la décision, les créanciers de tous les secteurs ont intérêt à bien en analyser les conséquences.

Introduction

The recent decision of Andrew Burrows QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, in Palliser Limited v Fate Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] EWHC 43 (QB), is a useful reminder of the difficulties that can arise where one party (here a tenant) relies on another (its landlord) to take out insurance.

The Facts

In 2010, a fire started at the ground floor restaurant owned and operated by a company called Fate Limited (“Fate”). It was not in dispute that the fire was caused by Fate’s negligence.

Re SHB Realisation Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd); Wright and another (as joint liquidators of SHB Realisations Ltd (formerly BHS Ltd)) v Prudential Assurance Companies Ltd [2018] EWHC 402 (Ch); [2018] All ER (D) 58 (Mar)

Synopsis

Daniel Gatty discusses the recent High Court ruling in Leon v Her Majesty’s Attorney General and others [2018] EWHC 3026 (Ch) and its impact on the grant of vesting orders following the disclaimer of a lease.

Readers of this column will be aware of the complications that can ensue when a lease is disclaimed by a tenant’s liquidator under section 178 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), by a tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy under section 315 of the IA 1986 or by the Crown under section 1013 of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) following dissolution of a tenant company.

This is the third occasion on which I have posted on this blog on the issue of after the event insurance (ATE) policies and the impact which they have on applications for security for costs.

In the first post on 16 November 2017, I praised the judgment of Snowden J in Premier Motorauctions v Pricewaterhouse Coopers for appearing to bring clarity to an area which had for some time struggled with near irreconcilable decisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) has overturned the decision rendered by a majority of the Federal Court of Appeal (the FCA) in Callidus Capital Corporation v Her Majesty the Queen.

The case originated out of a motion filed in the Federal Court (the FC) by Callidus Capital Corporation (Callidus) to determine the following question of law:

Can an adjudicator have jurisdiction over claims for sums owed to a referring party in liquidation? The TCC has decided in Lonsdale v Bresco that insolvency set-off precludes adjudication of such claims.

Background

Bresco had agreed to perform electrical installation works for Lonsdale in August 2014. Those works were not completed and both parties alleged wrongful termination. Bresco later became insolvent and entered into liquidation in March 2015.

The revised Practice Direction: Insolvency Proceedings

July 2018

You have instructions to commence proceedings for damages for personal injury against a defendant company only to find that the company has entered in to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”). What procedural issues arise and what steps should be taken?

What is a CVA?