Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

Neil Jacobs, QCJoe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited v Business Development Bank of Canada, 2017 NLCA 35 (“Wabush Hotel”), which was released on May 25, 2017.

This case provides additional comfort to such firms that previous consulting or review engagement work will not prohibit them from acting in a receivership role in later insolvency proceedings.

Background

In this case, three debtor companies (Wabush Hotel Limited, L.H. Service Center Limited, and D.P.B. Holdings Limited) appealed the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (“PWC”) as receiver.

In April 2016, the Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) applied to the Court pursuant to s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for an order installing PWC as court-appointed receiver to manage the assets, undertakings, and property of the debtors.

Prior to the court proceedings, BDC as primary lender requested that PWC perform a review engagement of the debtors’ assets and liabilities. The debtors consented to the review, with clear conditions in the agreement that BDC would play an active role and that PWC would be permitted to take on other mandates regarding the debtors.

Ultimately, the debtors defaulted on their obligations to BDC. At the time of the court application, BDC claimed that it was owed an aggregate amount of $7.2 million by the debtors.

After negotiations, the debtors consented to PWC’s court appointment. The receivership order was granted in June 2016.

However, the debtors then had a change of heart, and sought to appeal the consent receivership.

Court of Appeal Denies the Debtors’ Appeal

The debtors raised two issues on appeal:

  1. was PWC in a disqualifying conflict of interest as court-appointed receiver because of its previous review of the debtors’ finances; and,
  2. should the consent receivership order have included a claims disposition plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the applications judge’s decision on both issues.

1. Conflict of Interest

The debtors argued that PWC was in a conflict of interest that arose from its previous review engagement relationship with the debtors at the direction of and on behalf of BDC.

The purpose of the review engagement was to determine the viability of the debtors and to assist BDC in making decisions regarding its lending and security.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the terms of PWC’s engagement letter, which provided, in part, that:

  • PWC, at the request of BDC, agreed to “review restructuring and cost reduction activities” and to assist in formulating a business plan;1
  • PWC would have no management responsibility or control over the debtors operations during the term of the engagement; and, most importantly,
  • the debtors acknowledged that PWC “is not precluded from accepting any other mandate in respect of the [debtor companies], including but not limited to appointments under statute or by court order”.2

Notably, the debtors did not challenge the validity of the engagement letter. Rather, the debtors argued that:

  • the debtors’ principal, a businessman of over 30 years, did not fully understand the terms of the engagement,
  • The debtors argued strongly that their principal, whose second    language was English, did not realize that the engagement permitted PWC to take on future mandates that might not align    with the debtors’ corporate interests; and
  • the previous review relationship effectively meant that PWC was precluded from taking on the court-appointed receiver role.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and held that “it is clear from the terms of the engagement letter, signed on behalf of the debtors, that PWC could not be found to be in a conflict of interest position given the mandate set forth in the engagement letter”.3 Moreover, the Court of Appeal noted that the evidence all pointed to the fact that the receivership was inevitable and PWC in no way contributed to the debtors’ default.

2. Failure to Include Realization Plan and Claims Plan

The debtors also argued that the applications judge erred in failing to include a realization or claims plan in the receivership order as they alleged that BDC and Bank of Montreal were not the sole creditors.

In support of their argument, the debtors pointed to a prior decision of the Trial Decision [Hickman Equipment (1985) Ltd. (Receivership), Re., 2004 NLSCTD 164] where a claims plan was developed by the receiver in connection with the bankruptcy proceeding.

BDC argued that the situation at hand was different than that faced by the court in Hickman Equipment as that matter involved a large and complex bankruptcy proceeding. Further, BDC argued that the debtors were precluded from raising this point on appeal as it was not a matter in dispute before the applications judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with BDC and declined to revisit the receivership management plan agreed to by the parties and approved by the applications judge. The Court of Appeal noted that a detailed claims plan akin to that set out in Hickman Equipment was unnecessary in the present circumstances since the debtors’ assets were all located Western Labrador and the financing was provided in large by two companies, BDC and Bank of Montreal.

What this means for clients

While this decision tracks with cases in other jurisdictions, it is a useful appeal court determination that an accounting firm has broad latitude to take on multiple roles regarding companies that may become insolvent.

Notwithstanding this decision, we stress that best practices for accounting firms should be:

  • to set out the nature of its role, particularly in pre-insolvency review or consulting agreements, and in particular the limitations on the relationship; and
  • to encourage companies to seek independent legal advice regarding the nature of review engagements in scenarios where restructuring or insolvency may arise.
SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Generic filters
Filter by Custom Post Type

 
 

Client Update: Atlantic Canada pension and benefits countdown to 2019

December 28, 2018

Level Chan and Dante Manna As 2018 comes to an end, we countdown some pension and employee benefits developments in the last year that we anticipate may lead to developments in 2019. Discrimination in benefits…

Read More

Client Update: Canada’s Proposed Cannabis Edibles, Extracts and Topicals Regulations Revealed

December 21, 2018

Kevin Landry The first look at regulations for cannabis edibles, extracts and topicals has arrived. The Federal Government has opened a 60-day consultation period respecting the strict regulation of additional cannabis products. Notice of the consultation was accompanied…

Read More

Client Update: Recent Supreme Court of Nova Scotia decision drives home the importance of credibility

December 20, 2018

Erin Best and Kara Harrington “This case is about pain, how it was caused, by what accident and the opinions of dueling experts.”¹ “In this case, like so many, the assessment of the evidence depends…

Read More

Client Update: Land use planning in Prince Edward Island: the year in review

December 20, 2018

Jonathan Coady and Michael Fleischmann Overview Once again, the time has come to review the year that was and to chart the course for the year ahead. For municipalities, developers and planning professionals throughout Prince…

Read More

Client Update: Nova Scotia Labour Standard Code changes – domestic violence leave & pregnancy / parental eligibility

December 14, 2018

Following the various Stakeholder Consultations (which Stewart McKelvey participated in on behalf of Nova Scotia Employers), the Government has changed the Labour Standards Code Regulations effective January 1, 2019 to: a) provide for up to…

Read More

Client Update: Coming to Canada? You may need biometrics / Mise à Jour : Vous pensez bientôt venir au Canada? Vous pourriez avoir besoin de fournir vos données biométriques

December 6, 2018

Version française à suivre Sara Espinal Henao Canada has expanded its permanent and temporary immigration requirements to include biometrics – the measurement of unique physical characteristics, such as fingerprints and facial features. The new requirements,…

Read More

Proposed Changes to IP Law: Will they impact your business?

December 3, 2018

Many businesses rely on trade-mark, copyright, and patent law for the protection of their intellectual property (IP). The Federal Government recently proposed changes to IP laws, which may impact your business. Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act,…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada rules against Canada Revenue Agency in GST/HST deemed trust case

November 27, 2018

Julia Parent and David Wedlake (special thanks to Graham Haynes for his assistance) In a rare decision from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) allowed the appeal of Callidus Capital Corporation in the matter…

Read More

Client Update: 12 tips for the company holiday party

November 23, 2018

Mark Tector and Killian McParland ‘Tis again the season for the company holiday party. And while the party planners are starting to break out the eggnog, there are some lessons learned from seasons past to…

Read More

Client Update: Who is a constructor?

November 16, 2018

Mark Tector and Richard Jordan The Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Act (the “Act”) provides that “contractors” and “constructors” have similar, but not identical, responsibilities, with a “Constructor” having greater authority and more responsibility for the health and…

Read More

Search Archive


Generic filters
Filter by Custom Post Type