Access loaned $20 million USD to Bron's subsidiaries in May 2020, defaulted in May 2021.
A consent judgment against Bron was obtained by Access in October 2022 for $10.9 million USD; only $151,000 USD was paid.
Access sought to appoint an equitable receiver over Bron’s assets due to continued defaults.
Issues:
CW, a secured creditor, opposed the receiver appointment and sought to appeal and stay the execution of the order.
Key question: Is it just and convenient to appoint an equitable receiver over Bron’s assets?
Court Decision:
The court granted CW's applications for leave to appeal and a stay of the receivership order.
The appeal was deemed significant to practice and proceeding, having merit and not unduly hindering progress.
No amount specified for costs.
Legal Reasoning:
The judge considered whether legal collection processes were exhausted before appointing a receiver.
Tests for Leave to Appeal: significance, merit, no undue hindrance.
Tests for Stay Application: serious question, irreparable harm, balance of convenience.
Conclusion:
Leave to appeal and stay of the receivership order granted until the hearing.
The appeal was expedited to minimize adverse impacts on Access.
Implications:
This case highlights the importance of exhausting legal remedies before resorting to appointing a receiver, balancing interests of secured vs. unsecured creditors.
