In Aquino (Re)¹, the Court of Appeal for Ontario delivered a significant decision addressing several issues of importance to insolvency practitioners: the right to appeal a bankruptcy order without leave; the incidental authority of a CCAA monitor to seek a bankruptcy order against a judgment debtor; and—perhaps most notably—the continuation of a M

Several significant judicial decisions were released in 2025 that remain relevant to businesses, commercial lenders and restructuring professionals. This bulletin summarizes the key developments of 2025 and highlights areas of significance for restructuring professionals and market participants to monitor in 2026.

1. Hudson’s Bay Company and Assignment of Contracts

On February 25, 2026, the Superior Court of Québec issued a noteworthy decision in the insolvency proceedings of SRTX Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, the SRTX Group), the company behind Sheertex, a well-known brand of rip-resistant tights. The Honorable Justice Luc Morin approved a pre-packaged transaction (also known as a “prepack”) under a “reverse vesting” structure, thereby facilitating the transfer of the SRTX Group’s business to Québec-based A.Y.K. International Inc. (AYK).

This article examines the emerging trend of U.S.-based companies with Canadian ties initiating primary insolvency proceedings in Canada and seeking recognition in the United States under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. As described herein, this two-step strategy enables debtors to take advantage of the flexibility and efficiency of Canadian restructuring regimes, while securing key U.S. bankruptcy protections.

A Strategic Shift in Cross-Border Insolvency

On January 26, 2026, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (ABKB) held that the Alberta Department of Energy and Minerals (Alberta Energy) is required to first advance its claim for royalty arrears owed by an insolvent energy company within ongoing restructuring proceedings of that insolvent company, before seeking recovery from jointly liable solvent co-lessees.

Structuring royalties as interests in land can provide significant protection in subsequent insolvency proceedings, but a recent decision from the Court of Appeal of Alberta underscores that technicalities may trump intentions. In Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v.

Introduction

When a professional corporation operates with equipment owned personally by its director, how do secured creditors assert priority over proceeds from a receivership sale?

Introduction

Reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have evolved from a creative restructuring tool used sparingly under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) into a flexible instrument increasingly considered in receivership and other insolvency proceedings. The past two years have seen Canadian courts (particularly in British Columbia) grapple with whether, and in what circumstances, an RVO can be justified under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).