On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).
As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.
Mareva orders, also known as freezing orders, may be granted when there is a risk that a defendant might move its assets out of reach of the court’s jurisdiction. Mareva can orders freeze assets owned directly or indirectly by the defendants. Oftentimes a defendant subject to a freezing order has other creditors seeking repayment. Can a creditor enforce its claim against the frozen assets? Yes, but the creditor must come to the court with clean hands and should not make loans to the defendant if it has notice of the order.
Why is this case of interest?
The ongoing litigation between Mr Palmer and Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court relates to the guilty verdict handed to Mr Palmer who was acting as an administrator and charged with an offence contrary to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 (TULRCA).
Gawain Moore, Ashley Armitage and Oliver Wheeler discuss the sanctioning by the Business and Property Courts in Leeds of the first creditor-led Part 26A restructuring plan.
The Supreme Court’s decision in BTI v Sequana & Others represents the most significant ruling on the duties of directors of distressed companies of the past 30 years. It is the first occasion on which the Supreme Court has addressed whether company directors owe a duty to consider or act in accordance with the interests of the company’s creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, insolvency (the creditor duty). The judgment is lengthy, but can be boiled down to the following key points.
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.