As a result of the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its containment measures on the Canadian economy and the lives of Canadian citizens, the legislatures and courts have granted wide-ranging relief for businesses and individuals from, among other things:
certain filing and payment deadlines such as for tax filings, payments and remittances and intellectual property filings; and
State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.
Dans l’affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies relative à Nemaska Lithium, la Cour supérieure du Québec rend une décision intéressante en ce qui concerne la possibilité pour une débitrice de résilier des contrats auxquels elle est partie et sur son obligation, le cas échéant, de payer à son cocontractant les frais qu’il doit encourir pour reprendre possession de biens loués.
In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act of Nemaska Lithium, the Québec Superior Court rendered an interesting decision regarding the possibility for a debtor to disclaim agreements and its obligation, if any, to pay its counterparty the costs it must incur to repossess leased property.
Background: Nemaska Lithium disclaims a housing modules rental agreement
We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.
Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.
In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.
The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that unpaid post-filing suppliers, which had neither sought a court-ordered charge to secure their post-filing claims nor availed themselves of their right to stop supplying goods or services to the debtor, cannot claim an implicit priority on the proceeds of sales of assets in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.
Background: going-concern sales of optometry clinics
A bankruptcy trustee exercising her or his avoidance powers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code may seek to recover the avoidably transferred property (or its value) from “the initial transferee,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made” and “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.”[1] Despite the authorization to seek recovery from multiple sources, “[t]he trustee is entitled to only a sin
Our May 22 post reported on the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.