Ontario Courts are routinely faced with requests for Approval and Vesting Orders in connection with asset acquisitions made in the context of receivership proceedings or proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"). Purchasers’ counsel who routinely seek these Orders for their clients seek to insulate their clients from claims made by third parties arising from the purchasers’ acquisition of the assets through the insolvency proceedings.

All businesses know that one key to profitability is risk management. Particularly in such industries as oil and natural gas, eligible financial contracts have emerged as an invaluable tool to hedge the risk associated with volatile foreign currency exchange, interest rates and commodity prices. Indeed, a large business has developed proffering over-the-counter derivatives (or ‘swaps’) and standardized exchange-traded derivatives (or ‘futures’) to do just that.

Courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.

However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that it could adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“Act”).

(judgment 22/2009)

This case concerned whether the English Court of Appeal decision in Re Bayoil S.A. (the “Bayoil Case”) would be persuasive in Guernsey and how the Royal Court of Guernsey should exercise its discretion under section 406 of the Companies (Guernsey) Law 2008 (the “Law”).  

In January 2011, the High Court refused to approve an examiner’s rescue plan (“Scheme of Arrangement”) for construction company McInerney Homes Limited (“McInerney”), on the basis that the Scheme of Arrangement was unfairly prejudicial to the secured creditors consisting of a Banking Syndicate of Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited, Bank of Ireland plc and KBC Bank plc (the “Banks”).

Overview

In the recent High Court decision of McInerney Homes Limited, the court has ruled for the first time that proposals for a scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”) entailing payment to a secured creditor of a written down sum in full satisfaction of its debt, could be approved. However, on the facts of the case the court held that the objecting secured creditors would be unfairly prejudiced if they were required to accept the sum proposed to be paid, and, accordingly, refused to approve the Scheme.

In Re McInerney Homes Limited

In the McInerney case, the company and the examiner sought to have schemes confirmed which would result in an immediate payment to a banking syndicate of €25 million. The banking syndicate contended that the discounted current value which they expected to recover from their security outside any schemes was €50 million.

In the matter of Birchport Limited (under the protection of the Court) and in the matter of the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1990

Any lending of funds needs to be adequately secured. This is a practice which every lender knows and should observe in order to adequately protect his credit. However, the meaning of "adequate security" is not straight forward and lenders must be careful when selecting their preferred security 

Introduction

The restructuring practice often calls for creative solutions, especially when the stakes are high and the debtor is in serious financial distress. Many restructuring lawyers have at times faced the question of whether it is possible for a debtor to transfer assets to a creditor subject to the condition precedent of the debtor being declared bankrupt.