IE CA 3 Holdings Ltd and IE CA 4 Holdings Ltd (Companies) were two Canadian registered companies whose directors were located outside of Canada. The Companies’ parent company, Iris Energy Limited (Iris), was listed on NASDAQ and had its registered office in Melbourne and principal place of business in Sydney, with three of its six directors located in New South Wales.

Contents Introduction 1 Misplaced Restructuring Stigma 2 Rebranding Corporate Reorganization 3 Insolvency Data for First Half of 2024: Highlights 4 Geographic Data Breakdown 10 Final Thoughts 15 Key Contacts 16 The information in this publication should not be relied upon as legal advice. We encourage you to contact us directly with any specific questions. © 2024 Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP. All rights reserved.

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Should a corporation be affixed with the fraudulent or other nefarious intent of its directing minds? The answer to this question is of key importance in several contexts where the “intent” of the corporation leads to specific legal consequences.

One of the main advantages for a debtor to seek protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is the stay of proceedings that prevents creditors faced with a default in payment from taking any action against the debtor. This allows the debtor, among other things, to reorganize itself or dispose of some or all of its assets under the court’s supervision. Be that as it may, there are exceptions.

Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin

A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).

Background

Insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) are generally practical and solution-oriented. Creativity is rewarded and, if there is a conflict between insolvency law’s practical focus on achieving desirable commercial outcomes on the one hand, and the requirements—often technical in nature—under other statutes such as the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) on the other, courts often apply insolvency law in a manner that gives priority to achieving those commercial outcomes.

Introduction

L’un des principaux avantages pour un débiteur de se placer sous la protection de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (« LACC ») ou de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (« LFI ») consiste en la suspension des procédures pouvant être intentées par un créancier faisant face à un défaut de paiement. Cette suspension des procédures permet notamment à la débitrice de se réorganiser ou de disposer de certains ou de l’ensemble de ses actifs sous la supervision du tribunal. Or, certaines exceptions existent.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Court determined that while disgorgement orders made by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) survive bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), administrative penalties may not.