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
The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.
In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Factual Background
In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).
InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.
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.
In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.
Background
为创新经济发展模式、扩大对外开放力度,国家设立大湾区并着力将其打造为充满活力的世界级城市群和内地与港澳深度合作示范区。从定位不难看出,实行充分的市场经济和法治经济,为全国经济发展提供新的引擎和全新的模式,无疑是粤港澳大湾区的重要使命。要完成这一神圣使命,离不开破产重整制度。通过破产重整,挽救那些一时陷入财务困境和经营困境的企业,从而为湾区经济健康发展保驾护航。SX公司通过破产重整涅槃重生,就是破产重整制度保驾护航的典型案例。
一、企业初探:破产重整的机遇与挑战
1、SX公司基本情况
SX公司成立于1981年,于1994年在深交所上市,总股本约35000万股,其中流通股18000万股,限售流通股17000万股。
SX公司控股或参股四家实业公司,分别为科技公司、实业公司、饲料公司和西部公司。
2、SX公司重整受理情况
因不能清偿到期债务,经债权人饲料公司申请,深圳市中级人民法院(下称深圳中院)于2009年11月10日裁定SX公司进入重整程序,并指定北京市金杜(深圳)律师事务所担任管理人。