VK Group pushed into receivership after court rejects CCAA stay

Avatar photo

A group of British Columbia–based trucking and delivery companies has been pushed into receivership after the Supreme Court of British Columbia refused to extend creditor protection, concluding the companies had failed to demonstrate a viable path to restructuring.

In a decision released Dec. 17, the court denied a request by V.K. Delivery & Moving Services Ltd. and related companies — together known as the VK Group — to extend their stay of proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. Instead, the court granted an application by senior secured lender Royal Bank of Canada to appoint a receiver.

VK Group truck
(Photo: VK Group)

Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick found the companies had spent months under CCAA protection without producing a credible plan of arrangement, while continuing to generate operating losses and erode the value of secured collateral.

“The evidence does not support a conclusion that further time under CCAA protection would advance the remedial purposes of the statute,” the court ruled.

The VK Group, which operates in trucking, logistics and delivery services, initially sought CCAA protection in May, arguing it needed time to secure refinancing and stabilize operations. While management pointed to ongoing discussions with a potential financier, the court found key conditions remained unresolved, and no firm funding commitment was in place.

RBC argued that further delays would harm the bank, which held security over the companies’ assets and would not be repaid in full under the proposed restructuring.

The court agreed, noting RBC effectively held veto power over any plan and should not be forced to absorb further losses while enforcement rights were stayed.

MNP Ltd. was appointed receiver and manager, assuming control of the companies’ assets and operations.

According to the company’s marketing materials, VK Delivery’s fleet included approximately 75 tractors, more than 100 trailers and 40 local delivery trucks.

Avatar photo


Have your say


This is a moderated forum. Comments will no longer be published unless they are accompanied by a first and last name and a verifiable email address. (Today's Trucking will not publish or share the email address.) Profane language and content deemed to be libelous, racist, or threatening in nature will not be published under any circumstances.

*

  • It is interesting that there are no comments about yet another mid-sized trucking company going bankrupt. Is this now such a common occurrence that people just keep scrolling? Observers of this industry must be inured to the drip-drip-drip of these failures, reports of which never seem to cease. And if these companies are really taking advantage of LMIA and Driver Inc as reported, with drivers working for starvation wages, how bad must their management and overall situation really be? Also, do souless lenders bear no part in these failures? How do these situations get so far down the road, pun intended? Where is the due diligence? Maybe there is too much money to be made from usurious rates of return. And finally, what is the role of shippers in this debacle? Do they have some responsibility in aiding and abetting this race to the bottom, playing the part of Igor to the Dr Frankensteins who create and control these trucking abominations, these lifeless corpses of zombie companies that finally collapse in a shudder of twitching death throes? Oh, and Happy New Year!