Dans l'affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies du détaillant nord-américain Groupe Dynamite, le Juge Kalichman, siégeant alors à la Cour supérieure du Québec, rend un jugement sur le traitement des taxes de vente pré-dépôt devant être remises par les débiteurs. La Cour exerce son pouvoir discrétionnaire afin de modifier l’ordonnance pour préciser que seules les taxes de vente accumulées ou perçues après la date de l’ordonnance initiale doivent être payées immédiatement aux autorités fiscales.

Although not a new concept, use of the reverse vesting order (RVO) structure to effect distressed M&A transactions in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) has quickly gained popularity in Canada over the last year. At its core, an RVO transaction involves a transfer of unwanted assets and liabilities — the “bad assets” — out of a distressed company into a newly established non-operating subsidiary, leaving the distressed business entity with only the “good assets” left to be acquired.

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 Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“) proceedings involving Carillion Canada and related entities (collectively, “Carillion Canada”) have been an ongoing area of interest for the construction industry since proceedings began in early 2018.

In its recent decision in Atlas (Brampton) Limited Partnership v. Canada Grace Park Ltd., 2021 ONCA 221, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) clarified the requirements for foreclosure on investment property under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the PPSA).

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released a decision in Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.’s (“Bellatrix”) proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), in which the Court dismissed Bellatrix’s appeal of the lower court’s decision that certain agreements (the “Contract”) between Bellatrix and BP Canada Energy Group ULC (“BP”) constituted an eligible financial contract (“EFC”).

The recent decision of Justice B.E.

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has denied leave to appeal in the proceedings of Nemaska Lithium Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, Nemaska) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In November 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) dismissed leave applications from the decision of the Superior Court of Québec (SCQ). In this decision, the SCQ granted, for the first time after a contested hearing, a “reverse vesting order” (RVO).

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.

In Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc[1] [Chandos], the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.