Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 AUGUST 2017

Receivership Or CCAA? Having Already Given Significant Time, A Creditor Is Not Forced To Wait Longer To Enforce

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

In late July 2017, Mr. Justice Scherman was faced, for the second time in less than two years, with competing applications for CCAA and receivership orders.

CanadaFinance and Banking

Affinity Credit Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd. 2017 SKQB 228

In late July 2017, Mr. Justice Scherman was faced, for the second time in less than two years, with competing applications for CCAA and receivership orders. For the second time, he rejected the application under the CCAA and ultimately a receiver was appointed (in both cases, an interim receiver was appointed to preserve the status quo). On the first occasion, which involved Phenomenome Discoveries Inc. and Phenomenome Laboratories Inc., the decision was unreported notwithstanding that Justice Scherman appears to have given reasons. This time we have a full reported set of reasons.

Background Facts

Vortex Drilling Ltd. ("Vortex") was in the business of drilling oil wells. It was hit hard by the drop of the price of oil. In 2013, Affinity Credit Union 2013 ("Affinity") advanced Vortex nearly $15 million to refinance two drilling rigs and purchase a third rig. While the loan facilities were

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from