On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its much-anticipated decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp, 2022 SCC 41, addressing a key intersection of insolvency and arbitration law—whether and in what circumstances a contractual agreement to arbitrate should give way to the public interest in the orderly and efficient resolution of a court-ordered receivership.
Introduction
The “fresh start” principle is a long-standing objective of Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA“) that aims assist honest but unfortunate debtors by discharging debts owed to creditors. However, in the recent decision Poonian (Re), 2022 BCCA 274, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that sanctions imposed by the British Columbia Securities (the “Commission“) in respect of fraud related misconduct will survive any discharge under the BIA.
A bankruptcy discharge releases the debtor from pre-bankruptcy debts or liabilities. The purpose is to give the debtor a “fresh start” from excessive debts that cannot be repaid, except in certain situations such as where the debt arises from deceitful or fraudulent conduct. In Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that securities sanctions are excluded from bankruptcy discharge.
The “fresh start” principle is a long-standing objective of Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA“) that aims assist honest but unfortunate debtors by discharging debts owed to creditors. However, in the recent decision Poonian (Re), 2022 BCCA 274, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that sanctions imposed by the British Columbia Securities (the “Commission“) in respect of fraud related misconduct will survive any discharge under the BIA.
Overview and Why This Case Matters
Petersen v.
On March 30, 2021, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the Court) made an initial order under the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA) in respect of EncoreFX Inc. (EncoreFX) one year after the commencement of its bankruptcy proceedings. The decision is unusual in that the applicant for the CCAA initial order was EncoreFX’s trustee in bankruptcy (the Trustee), who also sought to be appointed as monitor of EncoreFX (with enhanced powers). On April 22, 2021, the Court released the reasons for its decision.1
Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) allow the realization of value from assets of a debtor company in circumstances where a traditional transaction model is not effective, preserving the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be transferred to a purchaser. Two recent decisions demonstrate the willingness of courts to embrace creative solutions, where appropriate, to realize value for stakeholders.
What is a Reverse Vesting Order?
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has confirmed that monetary penalties and disgorgement orders from regulatory proceedings are exempt from a bankruptcy discharge. In 2015, the British Columbia Securities Commission ordered Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Poonian to pay more than $19 million in penalties and disgorgement after the commission found that the pair had engaged in market manipulation. In 2018, the Poonians sought a discharge from bankruptcy absolving them of their debts.