Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

The Determinations Panel gave its reasons for imposing financial support directions (FSDs) on six Lehman Brothers companies on 29 September 2009. SNR Denton represented 22 of the 44 companies targeted for FSDs. The Determinations Panel accepted our submission that it would not be reasonable to impose an FSD on any of the companies we represented because of the Pensions Regulator's failure to particularise its case against them.

Background

Financial guarantees often contain non-competition clauses. This is mainly to:  

• increase the financier’s recoveries from its principal debtor, by stopping the guarantor from draining money from the principal debtor; and  
• prevent the guarantor from obstructing a restructuring of the principal debtor’s liabilities.  

A recent case suggests these clauses should expressly exclude the “rule in Cherry v. Boultbee”. Zoë Thirlwell and Alexander Hewitt explain.

Counter-indemnity rights  

In Rieger Printing Ink Co, 2009 WL 477541 (Ont S.C.J. [Commercial]), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a party's right to protection against selfincrimination in relation to an examination held under section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. B-3 ("BIA").

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), came into force on July 7, 2008. This paper will set out the implications of the WEPPA on insolvency practice and provide a brief analysis of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (Re), 2009 BCSC 41 (“LeRoy Trucking”), the only reported decision regarding the WEPPA (as at the date of this paper) since the legislation came into force.

I. Introduction to the WEPPA

Vanquish Oil & Gas (“Vanquish”), now in receivership, was a trustee under a joint operating agreement for an oil well. It was required to remit 45% of the well’s net production proceeds to a proportional owner - either Karl Oil and Gas Ltd. or Choice Resources Corporation (who disputed the entitlement at the time).

TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

Section 147 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) provides that the Superintendent’s Levy is applied to defray the supervisory expenses of the Superintendent, will be charged on dividend payments made by the trustee.