The Supreme Court of Canada's ("SCC") recent decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v.

It is common for construction project owners to finance projects through multiple mortgages, especially in times of rising construction costs. However, when an insolvency situation arises, holdback priority claims from contractors and subcontractors are particularly complex when there are multiple building mortgages involved. The Ontario Superior Court (Commercial List) provided new clarity in this regard in its April 29, 2022 decision in BCIMC Construction Fund Corp. et al.

Understanding limitation periods are of crucial importance in the construction industry, particularly when a contractor is faced with unpaid invoices for services or materials rendered. The Ontario Court of Appeal stepped back into the spotlight in this regard with its decision in Thermal Exchange Service Inc. v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1289, 2022 ONCA 186, in holding that a defendant's assurances may prolong the "discoverability" of a claim for non-payment.

Background

In a decision released on March 11, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided reassurance for those in the construction industry of the effectiveness of section 9(1) of the Construction Act, RSO c C.30 (“CA”) in insolvency proceedings. This decision did not overturn the previous decision rendered in Re Veltri Metal Products Co (2005), 48 CLR (3d) 161 (Ont CA) (“Veltri”); rather, the Court of Appeal distinguished the two cases on the facts.

The recent successful appeal in Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another [2016] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) has clarified and highlighted the complexities of bringing a wrongful trading claim and the importance of correctly quantifying losses for which directors can be made personally liable under section 214 and/or 246Z of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”).

The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.

Background

Unless you have been hiding in an igloo in Antarctica for the last year you could not possibly have missed the media furore over the huge pension liabilities of eminent companies that have become insolvent. BHS, a venerable British retailer, is the most high profile after recently entering administration with an estimated pensions deficit of £571m.

The interest rate mis-selling scandal took another twist recently when a landmark legal case was dismissed by the High Court. Had the case been successful it would have challenged the banks’ £2.1bn compensation scheme set-up to settle inappropriate interest rate swaps – however the decision only brings temporary relief for the banks.

Background

During the previous UK government’s tenure, in March 2015 a call for evidence was launched to understand better the employee consultation process when an employer faces insolvency, restructure or other form of company rescue (Call for Evidence on Collective Redundancy Consultation for Employers facing Insolvency).

The call for evidence sought views on the following areas:

Further to the review of pre-pack administration sales (“pre-packs”) by Teresa Graham CBE last year (the findings of which were published in the “Graham Report” and discussed in one of our earlier blogs,Change in Sight for UK Pre-pack Administration Regulation), the key recommendations have now been implemented in order to improve fairness and transparency especially where a pre-pack sale occurs to a connected party.