Le 8 mai 2020, suite à une décision unanime rendue séance tenante le 23 janvier 2020, la Cour suprême du Canada (la « Cour suprême ») a publié ses motifs dans le cadre des procédures d’insolvabilité de Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc., désormais 9354‑9186 Québec inc., et al.
On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (Supreme Court) issued its reasons in the restructuring proceedings of Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc., now 9354‑9186 Québec Inc., et al.
Due to the current economic downturn, many corporations (Borrowers) may find themselves in financial difficulty and need to refinance their existing debt obligations with creditors (Lenders). Such Borrowers may be able to reduce their financing costs through the issuance of “distress preferred shares” (DPS). This method of refinancing generally does not adversely affect the Lenders, as they can receive equal or better after-tax returns on their investments without jeopardizing their security and priority.
Landlord and tenant relationships are likely to come under strain as tenants experience financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For tenant companies such financial difficulties may result in a tenant being placed in examinership, or ultimately in the appointment of a liquidator or receiver. An insolvency event generally constitutes an event of default in a commercial lease.
En 2019, les tribunaux canadiens, dont la Cour suprême du Canada, ont rendu un certain nombre de décisions qui présentent un intérêt pour les prêteurs commerciaux et les spécialistes des dossiers de restructuration. Le présent article propose, pour chacune de ces affaires, un résumé des enjeux d’importance.
In 2019, a number of judicial decisions were rendered across Canada, including by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), that will be of interest to commercial lenders and restructuring professionals. This article summarizes the core issues of importance in each of these cases.
In 2019, a number of judicial decisions were rendered across Canada, including by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), that will be of interest to commercial lenders and restructuring professionals. This article summarizes the core issues of importance in each of these cases.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act has its own legal personality and can institute legal proceedings in its own name. However, difficulties can arise where proceedings are commenced on behalf of a company where this has not been properly authorised by the company. In addition, where a company is a party to proceedings, in the absence of certain limited exceptions, it must retain legal representation to act on its behalf.
Authority to Institute Proceedings
Directors of the Company
In October 2019, syncreon Group Holdings B.V. and its subsidiaries (collectively, the syncreon Group) completed a landmark cross-border balance sheet restructuring of approximately US$1.1-billion of debt. The syncreon Group’s restructuring is believed to be the first time that English scheme of arrangement proceedings have been used to restructure debt issued by a U.S.-based multinational enterprise (Scheme Proceedings).
McCann FitzGerald acted for the Asia Pulp and Paper Group (“APP Group”) in the recent successful restructuring of over US$1 billion of debt.
In a first for the Irish restructuring market, the debt was restructured through a scheme of arrangement under section 676 of Part 11 of the Companies Act 2014 (“Part 11 Scheme of Arrangement”). On 23 October 2019, the US Bankruptcy Court granted recognition of the scheme under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.