Yesterday, the ECSC Court of Appeal set aside the winding up order made in the case of Westford Special Situations Fund Ltd. v. Barfield Nominees Limited and another, and dismissed the Joint Liquidators appointed over the fund.
Westford was put into liquidation earlier this year by shareholders whose application was based on their entitlement to unpaid redemption proceeds. At first instance the application was allowed and Joint Liquidators were appointed over the Fund on two grounds:-
The provisions of Part IX of the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (as amended,1 the Companies Act) deal with corporate reconstructions, specifically:
- mergers;
- consolidations;
- sales of assets;
- forced redemptions of minority shareholders;
- arrangements; and
- provisions dealing with dissenting members.
It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.
On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.
Both of Canada’s primary insolvency statutes, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) provide for an automatic stay of all legal proceedings when an insolvent debtor files for or seeks insolvency protection. The purpose of the stay is to provide breathing space to a debtor attempting to restructure its business so as to avoid “death by a thousand cuts” and also to ensure similarly situated creditors are treated equally.
As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process?
In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette dealt with the situation that arises when a business relationship turns sour and the only two shareholders are at a standoff.
Background
The treatment of shareholder and other equity-related claims in the context of insolvency and reorganization proceedings in Canada was initially judge-determined and the case law generally accepted the premise that shareholders were not entitled to share in the assets of an insolvent corporation until after all the ordinary creditors have been paid in full. In 2009 further clarity was brought to the issue by introduction of the “
Individuals who serve as directors or offices of public companies in Canada face an increasing amount of shareholder litigation and a complex web of legal and regulatory provisions that must be managed, navigated and adhered to. The challenge to directors only increases when the company is insolvent, on the eve of insolvency or otherwise in some form of financial distress. If the insolvency is driven by a liquidity crisis the company may be hard-pressed to maintain day-to-day operations and preserve going concern value for stakeholder groups. Alternatively, if the pr
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of SurfStitch Group Limited [2018] NSWSC 164, where the Court refused to allow administrators to value claims of class action group members at a nominal $1 for voting at the second creditors’ meeting.
What happened?
On 11 December 2017, the administrators of SurfStitch filed an application seeking orders:
In our previous blog post, we examined the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal to uphold the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring by way of scheme of arrangement.