What is a statutory arrangement used for that an amalgamation or sale can't accomplish?

A statutory arrangement earns its place in the corporate toolkit by doing something ordinary amalgamations and asset sales can't: bundling several different transactional steps together, with binding court approval, into a single coordinated result. An amalgamation follows one fixed statutory template for combining corporations; a sale of assets follows the mechanics of buying and selling specific property. Neither is designed to handle, in one step, something like a share capital reorganization combined with a corporate split, a going-private buyout of minority shareholders, and a debt restructuring all at once.

An arrangement can combine these pieces because the court's approval order is what makes the whole package legally effective and binding, rather than relying on each piece separately satisfying its own statutory or contractual requirements. That same court order also binds shareholders, including ones who voted against the transaction, subject to dissent rights, which gives certainty that an ordinary vote alone might not.

Because of that flexibility and finality, arrangements are typically reserved for reorganizations genuinely too complex or interdependent to be broken into separate amalgamations or sales, rather than being used as a shortcut for simple transactions that fit those ordinary tools perfectly well.