The Restructuring, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Group considers the legal, commercial and practical issues.

Do a deal quickly!

Often it is in the interests of both buyer and seller to negotiate and complete a deal as soon as possible to preserve value in the business before goodwill is tainted with any stigma of insolvency or key employees, suppliers or customers leave the business.

Buy the business not the shares

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

In the recent decision of Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada has, for the first time, interpreted key provisions of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

The judgment of the Court, which was pronounced December 16, 2010, overrules appellate authority from Ontario and British Columbia that previously conferred a priority for unremitted GST on the Crown in CCAA proceedings, and endorses the broad discretionary power of a CCAA court.

Intracoastal Systems Engineering Corporation ("Intracoastal") failed to remit tax, employment insurance premiums and Canadian Pension Plan contributions deducted from employees' paycheques in the amount of $166,314.89.

The Humber Valley Resort Corporation and related companies (collectively, “Humber Valley”) applied for, and was granted, an Initial Order from the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Trial Division) staying proceedings against it for one month under the CCAA. On this same date, the Court authorized a DIP lending facility of up to $600,000.00, with a first priority charge over various of Humber Valley’s assets. At the end of the initial stay period, Humber Valley brought two further applications.

AML changes for court-appointed liquidators

Important changes for court-appointed liquidators to the regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) will come into force on 9 July 2021.  These changes provide that, for a court-appointed liquidator:

The English High Court has rejected a challenge to the CVA proposed by Caffè Nero in a decision that provides guidance on the use of the electronic voting procedure for votes on CVAs, the effectiveness of modifications made to a CVA during the process and the duties of the directors and nominees when considering last minute offers for a business in a restructuring scenario. Mr Justice Green rejected all grounds of challenge brought by Mr Ronald Young, a landlord to Nero Holdings Limited ("NHL").

As the focus on ESG issues intensifies in the financial markets, we have seen institutional investors demand more in these areas, in terms of both disclosures and concrete targets, from banks and funds. Meanwhile, emerging regulations, and reforms designed to help meet climate change targets and to enhance corporate governance, sustainability and environmental and social responsibility are underway. How will refinancings and restructurings of the significant amount of corporate debt coming out of COVID be affected by such winds of change?

The economic impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus remains uncertain, but many are preparing for an up-tick in bankruptcies and, in particular, 363 transactions – sales of assets pursuant to Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code. Here are some practical steps that can help you prepare for your own 363 process and finding your stalking horse.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).