In a decision handed down on January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that a bankrupt oil and gas company fulfil its obligation to reclaim abandoned oil wells before paying any creditors. This decision has since sparked conflicting reactions across the country: first, because it gives clear precedence to environmental protection in the event of bankruptcy, and second, because of the influence it will likely have over business decisions in industries where environmental risks are involved.

Dans un arrêt du 31 janvier 2019, la Cour suprême ordonne qu’une société pétrolière faillie s'acquitte d’abord de ses obligations de remise en état des puits de pétrole abandonnés, avant de procéder à tout paiement en faveur de ses créanciers. Une décision qui suscite des réactions opposées d’un bout à l’autre du pays, puisque, d’une part, elle donne clairement préséance à la protection de l’environnement en cas de faillite, mais que, d’autre part, elle risque d’influencer les décisions d’affaires dans des industries où des risques environnementaux sont en jeu.

In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”

1. Introduction

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.

In the recent landmark decision of The Guarantee Company of North America v.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada decided, in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., that a provincial regulator, in this case the Alberta Energy Regulator (the “AER”), can enforce end-of-life obligations with respect to oil wells, pipelines and other provincially regulated facilities belonging to a bankrupt company or its trustee in bankruptcy, even if the enforcement orders adversely affect the assets in the bankrupt’s estate and its secured creditors.

Le 31 janvier 2019, dans l’affaire Orphan Well Association c. Grant Thornton ltée., la Cour suprême du Canada (« CSC ») a décidé qu’un organisme de réglementation provinciale, en l’espèce l’Alberta Energy Regulator (« AER »), peut exiger le respect des obligations de fin de vie de puits, pipelines et autres installations assujetties aux règlements provinciaux d’une société en faillite ou de son syndic, même si les ordonnances de l’AER causent un préjudice à l’actif du créancier ou aux créanciers garantis.

Control to Serbian Creditors- the amendments to the Serbian Insolvency Act

The recent amendments to the Serbian Insolvency Act enacted 9 December 2018 have placed more control into creditors’ hands allowing them to suggest the insolvency administrator to be appointed, as well as providing less restrictive provisions on the proposers of reorganisation proposals.

Background

Virginia Hills Oil Corp. was a small publicly traded oil producer with assets in north central Alberta. Some of its assets were held through its subsidiary Dolomite Energy Inc. (collectively the "Debtors"). The Debtors' main secured creditors were the Alberta Treasury Branches and the Bank of Nova Scotia (the "Banks"). The Debtors also owned a pipeline that passed through three municipalities (the "Municipalities").