A distressed merger and acquisition (“M&A”) is essentially a sub-category of a conventional M&A, which involves sales of shares or assets of companies that are in financial turmoil and these companies are being placed under administration, receivership and/or liquidation. Due to the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, distressed M&A transactions have become more common in recent years with companies in financial and operational distress looking to dispose of their assets to better manage high illiquidity as well as reducing over-indebtedness risk.

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. But we are always looking for more input. So, if you’d like to participate in the drafting process, let me know.

New Zealand’s economy, like many others, has been significantly impacted by global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic hangover (inflation, supply chain shocks and high interest rates). These events have led to an increase in distressed M&A activity as healthy companies seek to acquire those in financial distress. Distressed M&A is not without its challenges. The uncertainty of the distressed company’s true value, potential liabilities, and the risk of subsequent insolvency proceedings can deter potential acquirers.

In the Matter of Holt Fund SPC (Unreported, 26 January 2024) is the first occasion where an application has been made to appoint Restructuring Officers over portfolios of a segregated portfolio company. At first glance the judgment appears uncontroversial. However, it highlights a lacuna in the law which readers should be aware of.

Background

The Petitioner sought the appointment of Restructuring Officers (ROs) in respect of two segregated portfolios of the Holt Fund SPC.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

Peter Bowden heads Gilbert + Tobin’s Restructuring + Insolvency group.

He specialises in front-end restructuring and insolvency and has significant experience advising hedge funds, banks, special situations groups, investment banks, insolvency practitioners, creditors and debtors on all elements of restructuring, insolvency, liability management, workouts, banking and distressed debt transactions in a range of industries including financial services, energy, mining, mining services, property, construction, agriculture and manufacturing.

Introduction

A few weeks ago, real estate practitioners, investors, speculators, lenders and aspiring homeowners were all surprised to learn that The One, a monster development at 1 Bloor St. West in Toronto, was being placed into receivership. The project undertaken by Sam Mizrahi and his company, Mizrahi Inc., is slated to be an 85-storey mixed-use residential tower in the heart of the city, comprising retail stores, a restaurant, a hotel and luxury residential suites. It would be an iconic addition to Toronto’s growing skyline…

The Kemper/Lumbermens saga

To refresh everyone’s recollection, this is a report from Business Insurance from March 14, 2010:

The recent rise in company insolvencies has been driven by a high number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations (CVL). The outlook for the rest of 2023 is that there will be an even higher number of companies entering a formal insolvency process in almost every sector and industry.

A high proportion of these insolvencies are small businesses (SME’s), some of which had managed to keep going with the help of Government-led support packages and bounce back loans, but with rising interest rates and inflation, they are now struggling to repay loans and obtain financing.

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.