Where lenders are lending to and taking security from companies that may become subject to special administration regimes, the value of the security may be affected and enforcement options restricted. More companies are subject to these procedures than you might think. So, how do you identify whether your borrower is subject to one of these regimes? Should you place a lower value on your security? What are your enforcement rights? Might your borrower become affected after grant of the security?

Special administration regimes

Following proposals Treasury made at the end of 2009, it has now published for consultation draft regulations setting up a special resolution regime for investment banks. The regime will apply to firms that meet all of the following three conditions:

In Bank of Montreal v River Rentals Group Ltd [2010] ABCA 16, the Alberta Court of Appeal had to consider the acceptance of a higher bid made after the tender closing date.

The Commission has agreed a plan to split Northern Rock into two banks, a “good” and a “bad” one. The “good” bank will carry on the economic activities of Northern Rock and the “bad” one will be an asset management company that will run down the remaining business. The Commission found the UK Government had kept state aid to a minimum in planning the restructuring. Treasury is pleased with the approval, which it says will allow Northern Rock to return to the mortgage markets while the back book of mortgages is managed separately.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

In Re: IC Creative Homes Inc. (2005) Carswell BC 3157 (Master) the Bankruptcy Court had previously granted an order under section 38 of the BIA allowing a creditor of the bankrupt to commence proceedings against the bankrupt’s accounting and business advisor for alleged misconduct and negligence relating to the operations of the bankrupt prior to its bankruptcy.

In Re Farmpure Seeds Inc. (2008 CarswellSask. 639) the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench considered the proposal of a debtor which was conditional upon the Court approving DIP financing and a super priority charge.

The debtor company had an active business, however became insolvent as a result of rapid expansion and some improvident contracts. The debtor could not meet its immediate obligations such as payroll, and the need to pay its suppliers upon receipt of their seed product. As a result, the debtor could not maintain its business without immediate interim financing.

In Warren v. Warren the British Columbia Supreme Court recently appointed an equitable receiver over the assets of a judgment to debtor, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not have any security.

A limitation period is the statutory time limit set out in law for a person to file a lawsuit as a result of some loss or damage. Each Canadian province has a specific statutory framework governing limitation periods for legal matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces use a “discoverability” scheme under which a person must commence legal proceedings within two years of specific factual elements being “discovered” by the person.

On 26 June 2020, The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act) became law, providing the UK (but with separate provisions for Northern Ireland) with temporary and permanent changes to insolvency law aimed at helping businesses manage the economic implications of COVID-19.

Of particular interest to the construction industry will be one of the new Act’s permanent measures relating to continuing supply.