Revive Municipal Electricity Holding Company

Summary#

This private bill brings back a dissolved corporation called London Hydro Holdings Inc. The City of London was its sole shareholder. The bill’s main change is to “revive” the company so it exists again in law, as if it had not been dissolved in 2002. The stated goal is to let the company resume the business it did before it was dissolved.

• Revives London Hydro Holdings Inc., a company voluntarily dissolved on February 1, 2002.
• Restores the company’s previous property, rights, and privileges, and also its past debts and obligations, as they stood at the time of dissolution.
• Protects any legal rights other people gained after the company was dissolved (those rights are not undone).
• Takes effect on Royal Assent (the day the bill becomes law).

What it means for you#

• City of London

  • The City regains an active holding company it controls. It can use it again for the business it carried on before 2002 (for example, to hold assets or shares, enter contracts, or manage related activities).

• London Hydro Holdings Inc.

  • The company comes back into legal existence as if it had never been dissolved.
  • It gets back its former property and legal rights and resumes its former liabilities and debts as they existed at dissolution, except where doing so would affect rights others gained after 2002.

• Businesses and individuals who dealt with the company before 2002

  • Past contracts, debts, or other obligations the company had at the time of dissolution are restored, subject to any rights others acquired after dissolution and other applicable laws.
  • The bill does not explain how any specific contract or claim would be handled; those outcomes would depend on the facts and existing law.

• Residents and electricity customers

  • The bill does not change electricity rates, services, or customer rights. Its effect is limited to reviving the holding company.
  • Day-to-day utility service is not addressed in the bill.

• General public

  • This bill mainly affects corporate and municipal administration. It does not create new taxes, fines, or programs.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

• The bill does not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
• Any administrative or legal costs for the City or the company are not stated.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to fix a past dissolution so the company can legally operate again.
• Reviving the company could let the City manage assets, contracts, or holdings through the same entity used before 2002.
• Restoring the company “as if not dissolved” could simplify legal status and reduce barriers to resuming prior business activities.
• Protecting rights acquired by others after dissolution helps avoid unfair impacts on third parties.

Opponents' View#

• The bill does not explain why revival is needed now or what specific activities the company will undertake.
• Restoring past debts and obligations may raise questions about old liabilities, how they will be handled, and any limits that may apply under other laws.
• The phrase protecting “rights acquired by any person after dissolution” could lead to uncertainty or disputes over which rights are covered.
• There is no cost information, so the public cannot assess any financial impact on the City or the company.