Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.

Despite the “elegance” of the arguments challenging  the calling of creditors’ meetings on behalf of the former CEO, who argued that the rights of “B” shareholders including himself, would be adversely affected, Trower J found that as neither the contractual terms of the rights themselves nor their economic value would be affected by the plans, he would order calling of the meetings under section 901C(3) Companies Act 2006. There was no real change to the economic value for the B shareholders.  

ICC Judge Barber’s judgment in the case of Purkiss v Kennedy & ors (Re Ethos Solutions Ltd) [2022] EWHC 3098 (Ch) deals with a complex and late application for joinder and to re-amend proceedings. It was handed down following a four day hearing and weighs in at over 200 paragraphs, facts indicative of the unusual nature of the application.

The application before Richard Smith J in Re Prezzo Investco Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1679 (Ch) was for sanction of a restructuring plan between the company and certain of its creditors under ss 901F and 901G of Part 26A Companies Act 2006.

Commercial insolvency can affect stakeholders located in multiple jurisdictions and possessing diverse legal rights. A recent notable trend in Canadian insolvency law is the centralization in insolvency proceedings, where courts have recognized that an effective restructuring of an insolvent business may depend on the centralization of stakeholder claims in a single proceeding. This applies even when such an approach would be inconsistent with the parties’ contractual rights, statutory laws or Canada’s federal structure outside of the insolvency context.

In the recent case of Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41 (Peace River), the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) clarified the circumstances in which an otherwise valid arbitration agreement may be held to be inoperative in the context of a court-ordered receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA).

BACKGROUND

In the April 2022 decision of Harte Gold Corp. (Re), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] (the Court) provides guidance on the appropriate use of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in insolvency proceedings and enumerates key questions that must be addressed prior to the granting of an RVO. It is clear that the Court's reasoning in Harte Gold will have far reaching implications.

This overview is intended as an introductory summary to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), Canada’s principal statute for the reorganization of a large insolvency corporation. The CCAA applies in every province and territory of Canada, and even purports to have worldwide jurisdiction.

The case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors has had a long and tortuous history, culminating in a Supreme Court decision which has now been handed down over a year after a two day hearing in May last year ([2022] UKSC 25). The bare facts can be simply stated.