In a groundbreaking ruling, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia recently delivered a decision that is poised to significantly influence insolvency proceedings. The case, cited as British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246, marks the first time an appellate court has addressed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in receivership contexts. This ruling provides crucial insights into the court's reasoning and its implications for legal and non-legal professionals alike.
Background and core issue
The case revolves around an order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) that approved a transaction structured as an RVO. In essence, an RVO allows the shares of an insolvent debtor to be sold, stripping out unwanted assets and liabilities and transferring them to another entity, thus preserving the valuable assets within the original company. In this case, the RVO structure allowed the transaction to complete without triggering an obligation to pay provincial property transfer tax (PTT), enhancing the estate's value for creditors' benefit. The appellant, the Province of British Columbia, challenged this order, arguing that the judge erred in grounding jurisdiction in the BIA, contravening the Property Transfer Tax Act (PTTA) and exercising discretion improperly.
The Court's reasoning
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, providing several key points in its reasoning:
- Jurisdiction under the BIA: The Court confirmed that Section 243 of the BIA does confer jurisdiction to grant an RVO in a receivership. The ruling aligned with previous decisions that recognized the broad powers vested in courts to maximize returns for creditors within insolvency proceedings.
- Compliance with PTTA: The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the RVO contravened Section 72(1) of the BIA, which prevents the BIA from superseding provincial laws related to property and civil rights. The judge noted that the primary purpose of the RVO was to maximize creditor recovery, a core objective of the BIA and not merely to avoid tax.
- Exercise of discretion: In evaluating whether the judge properly exercised discretion, the Court emphasized that the RVO provided a more favourable economic outcome for the creditors compared to a traditional asset sale. The RVO preserved approximately CA$3.5 million in value, which would otherwise be lost to PTT. Additionally, the Court noted that there was no significant prejudice to any stakeholders except the taxing authority, which the judge found justifiable under the circumstances.
Key takeaways
This ruling is particularly noteworthy for several reasons:
- Precedent setting: This decision establishes a precedent for the use of RVOs in receiverships, providing clarity on the jurisdictional authority of courts under the BIA. It highlights the courts' flexibility in structuring insolvency transactions to maximize creditor returns.
- Balancing interests: The Court's analysis underscores the balance between adhering to statutory provisions and achieving practical, beneficial outcomes for creditors. The ruling illustrates the courts' willingness to endorse innovative solutions that align with the fundamental objectives of insolvency law.
- Implications for insolvency practice: For insolvency professionals, this decision offers a valuable tool in the form of RVOs, which can be strategically employed to enhance the value of insolvent estates. While practitioners must be cognizant of judicial commentary (which was recognized by both Courts in Peakhill) holding that RVOs are an "exceptional" remedy, this case may assist as a guide for structuring transactions in a manner that address this limitation by achieving economic efficiency.
About Dentons
Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways. Driven to provide clients a competitive edge, and connected to the communities where its clients want to do business, Dentons knows that understanding local cultures is crucial to successfully completing a deal, resolving a dispute or solving a business challenge. Now the world's largest law firm, Dentons' global team builds agile, tailored solutions to meet the local, national and global needs of private and public clients of any size in more than 125 locations serving 50-plus countries. www.dentons.com
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Specific Questions relating to this article should be addressed directly to the author.