Introduction

When a company enters liquidation, the appointed liquidator often needs approval from the Court or a liquidation committee before she can perform certain acts on the company’s behalf. The English High Court case of Gresham International Ltd v Moonie [2009] EWHC 1093 (Ch) established that even where the liquidator has failed to obtain such approval before acting, the Court has the general discretion to grant retrospective approval.

The creditors of a company in financial distress are often faced with various options. A debtor company can either be liquidated, placed in business rescue or enter into a compromise with its creditors without first being placed in liquidation. Although an offer of compromise, at first glance, may seem very attractive to creditors, there may be many pitfalls of which creditors must be aware.

With the global recession still being felt, times are tough and many companies are struggling to collect debts from errant customers or clients. In these cases, a winding-up application is arguably the most effective way to collect substantial debt as the following example shows.

A liquidator has been appointed to supervise the winding up and sale of the assets of Union of Canada Life, one of Canada's oldest life insurance companies, by order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Union of Canada applied under the Winding Up and Restructuring Act (WURA) for a Winding Up Order and the appointment of Grant Thornton as liquidator to take possession and control of the company and conduct the sale under the protection of a stay of proceedings.

U.S. bankruptcy courts may be advantageous forums for foreign liquidators to organize large scale lawsuits; however, courts will impose limitations.

Outdoor Broadcast Networks Inc (Re), 2010 ONSC 5647

The debtor had filed a notice of intention to make a proposal (“NOI”) to its creditors under the BIA. It was proposing to immediately sell certain assets in Ontario and BC to help it fund its proposal. As the proposal had not yet been made, the debtor was the one selling assets out of the ordinary course, and the sale was subject to the Ontario Bulk Sales Act. That Act does not apply to sales by bankruptcy trustees, receivers, sheriffs, or other liquidators for the benefit of creditors.

On July 14, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Reliance Insurance Company, an application regarding the allocation of surplus arising from the liquidation of the Canadian branch (Reliance Canada) of U.S.-based Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance U.S.), a property and casualty insurer that was itself in liquidation.

A recent decision of the Privy Council dismissing the claim of liquidators of an insolvent hedge fund to claw back redemption payments made to an investor leaves lingering uncertainties for investors generally.

Claw backs post 2008 crisis

When a fund fails, the disappointed investors’ sole hope of recompense often rests on the fund’s liquidators gathering in and distributing pari passu as many of the fund’s assets as possible. The judgment of the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal in Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) v Simon Conway and David Walker (CICA 2 of 2016), delivered on 18 November 2016, clarifies aspects of the liquidators’ power to claw back certain types of redemption payments made shortly prior to liquidation.

In three recent decisions the courts have examined the limits on a liquidator’s ability to obtain court orders compelling third parties to provide documents held by them, as well as deciding on the recoverability of costs incurred by third parties complying with production orders that are made against them.