This article will look at the recent decision of David Doyle J in In the Matter of HQP Corporation Limited (in Official Liquidation) (7 July 2023) and its effect on the ability of investors to recover damages from a company in which they have acquired shares as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Introduction
The case involved an application by liquidators for direction in relation to three issues in the winding up of the Company:
On 6 October 2023, Parker J handed down his reasons for dismissing an application to bring the voluntary liquidation of Port Link GP Ltd, General Partner (GP) of The Port Fund L.P. (TPF) under the supervision of the Grand Court pursuant to section 124 of the Companies Act. (Section 124)
The illegality defence (which aims to prevent a party benefiting from its illegal conduct via legal claims) has been the subject of considerable judicial analysis in commonwealth jurisdictions in recent years.
In MNP Ltd. v. Canada Revenue Agency (MNP v CRA), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“ABQB”) clarified the effect of bankruptcy on a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” acquired on registration against a debtor’s land, ultimately holding that whatever priority a writ’s binding interest has before bankruptcy, it is undercut by the debtor’s bankruptcy. In so doing, the ABQB reaffirmed the validity of a “priority flip” between secured creditors and unsecured judgment creditors upon a debtor’s bankruptcy.
Background
In its unanimous decision, Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal modified the common law doctrine of corporate attribution in the bankruptcy and insolvency context to uphold a decision of Ontario Superior Court’s Commercial List, which ordered a corporate officer and his associates, whom collectively orchestrated a fraudulent invoicing scheme, to repay over $30 million to company creditors pursuant to s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).
Background
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.