As Yeats said in his poem, The Second Coming: "mere anarchy is loosed upon the world". While perhaps not anarchy, certainly most insolvency practitioners expected the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Redwater[1] to be upheld, preserving the priorities afforded to secured creditors and rendering the Provincial Government to be an unsecured Creditor.

On December 10, 2018, the Superior Court of Quebec (Court) released an important judgment concerning the assignment of contracts under the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (CCAA), in which the Court held that it was possible for an assignee to have contracts transferred to it without having to assume the monetary penalties arising from the assumed contracts for defaults by the assignor prior to the assignment.[1]

The recent decision in ITB Marine Group Ltd. v. Northern Transportation Company Limited, 2017 BCSC 2007 ["ITB"] confirms the priority of pension claims in the insolvency context. The decision will be of interest to practitioners involved in priority disputes between secured creditors and beneficiaries of statutory deemed trusts, particularly those arising out of pension legislation.

As the Courts have often stated, in bankruptcy and insolvency law, time is of the essence. Bankruptcy and insolvency legislation allows the Court to craft orders with the specific aim of shielding a Receiver against frivolous actions, such that the Receiver may complete his task of managing property while enforcing the rights of a secured creditor in a timely fashion. The HRH Hotels Ltd. case is one such example where the Court ruled that a plaintiff's claim against the Receiver was frivolous and constituted a collateral attack on the Receivership process.

The recent decision in Iona Contractors Ltd. v. Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 ABCA 240 [Iona] (PDF) (leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied) clarifies the law regarding provincial statutory trusts in the insolvency context.

Somewhere close to Sandton – Africa’s richest square mile – lies the suburb of Parkmore in the Gauteng Province. This is the principal place of business of a debtor that cannot pay its debts, and is facing the barrel of an application for its winding-up. The debtor’s registered address is in Mbombela within the province of Mpumalanga – close to Africa’s Big Five game. Two court options come into play.

South African state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are coming under tremendous pressure to do something to extricate themselves from their financial woes. Any kind of bankruptcy event cannot be the answer: because of the obvious cross-default impact such a declaration will have on various debt and other instruments in the capital markets. It will also be catastrophic to the Government’s standing and rating in the financial markets.

Chapter 6 of the South African Companies Act, 2008, as a corporate restructuring regime, provides a formal restructuring tool for financially distressed (which exists when a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (cash-flow insolvency) or when a company’s liabilities exceed the value of its assets (balance-sheet insolvency) or when those events are likely to occur in 6 months (imminent insolvency) companies.

On 20 May 2015, the Supreme Court of Appeal (in the matter of African Banking Corporation of Botswana v Kariba Furniture Manufacturers & Others) clarified one of the biggest uncertainties arising out of the business rescue provisions of the Companies Act. The Court has now clarified the meaning of the term “binding offer” in a manner which not only brings clarity to the business rescue regime in general, but also will provide greater comfort to banks and other creditors.

Thanks to a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia released on June 13, 2013, Court-appointed receivers can now accept appointments with greater confidence that their fees and expenses incurred in passing their accounts are recoverable from the estate - or possibly from a third party who raises opposition, if no assets remain in the estate.

In Re Avant Enterprises Inc.^[1], the Supreme Court of British Columbia expressed its reluctance to leave its receiver exposed in respect of costs incurred in the passing of its accounts.