A ruling on December 7, 2012, by the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that orders made under provincial environmental protection legislation can be compromised as part of insolvency proceedings. While not all regulatory claims will be compromised in this way, those that meet certain criteria of "monetary claims" can be. The decision in Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. has important ramifications for debtor companies and their stakeholders in respect of contaminated property and other regulatory matters.
Today the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released a decision finding that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not exempt from claims proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) relating to unfulfilled remediation obligations of an insolvent company. Due to general financial stress, AbitibiBowater Inc. ended industrial operations in the Province and filed for insolvency protection.
In Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., 2012 SCC 67, the Supreme Court of Canada was called upon to consider whether orders issued by a regulatory body with respect to environmental remediation work are “provable claims” in a proceeding commenced under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.C-36 (the “CCAA”).
Since Nortel Networks Corporation and a number of related companies (together, “Nortel”), initiated a reorganization under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) over two years ago, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (the “MOE”) has sought to hold Nortel responsible to remediate environmental contamination remaining on properties once or currently owned by Nortel. Nortel has maintained that its responsibility for the environmental contamination should not be prioritized ahead of its other obligations.
Timminco Limited (TSX:TIM) has been granted creditor protection under theCompanies' Creditors Arrangement Act until February 2, 2012 by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Timminco produces silicon metal for the chemical, aluminum and electronics/solar industries through its 51%-owned production partnership with Dow Corning, known as Québec Silicon. Timminco is also a producer of solar grade silicon for the solar photovoltaic energy industry, through Timminco Solar, a division of its wholly owned subsidiary, Bécancour Silicon.
The claim against the liquidator was abandoned due to the fact that he was an insolvency practitioner and had no personal responsibility for the present state of the site and there was nothing to suggest that the “liquidator did anything wrong”. What is involved in the concept of doing nothing wrong is not explained. Interpreting the risk to liquidators in light of this case and the leading Irish Ispat case (in which a liquidator also escaped clean up costs), liquidators need to carefully consider what actions to take, or not to take, if it transpires that issues arise about unl
The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.
The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.
The judgment of the Commercial Court in WASA and AGF v Lexington shows that a “follow settlements” clause in a reinsurance contract will not obviate the need for the reinsured to demonstrate that an inwards settlement falls within the terms and conditions of its outwards reinsurance. Partner Michael Mendelowitz reviews the judgment.