Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.

While gaining recognition of Canadian insolvency proceedings south of the border used to be wishful thinking for an insolvent Canadian entity having involvement in the cannabis industry, such proceedings are now seemingly becoming a potential option. The United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California Los Angeles Division (the “Court”) recently dismissed the United States Trustee’s (the “Trustee”) second motion to dismiss in The Hacienda Company, LLC’s (“THC”) bankruptcy proceedings.

Introduction

A few weeks ago, real estate practitioners, investors, speculators, lenders and aspiring homeowners were all surprised to learn that The One, a monster development at 1 Bloor St. West in Toronto, was being placed into receivership. The project undertaken by Sam Mizrahi and his company, Mizrahi Inc., is slated to be an 85-storey mixed-use residential tower in the heart of the city, comprising retail stores, a restaurant, a hotel and luxury residential suites. It would be an iconic addition to Toronto’s growing skyline…

A recent Canadian insolvency filing could provide insight into how U.S. courts will approach Chapter 15 applications from foreign cannabis-related entities.

There may be hope on the horizon for insolvent Canadian cannabis companies who wish to seek recognition proceedings south of the border.

In brief

The courts were busy in the second half of 2021 with developments in the space where insolvency law and environmental law overlap.

In Victoria, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the potential for a liquidator to be personally liable, and for there to be a prospective ground to block the disclaimer of contaminated land, where the liquidator has the benefit of a third-party indemnity for environmental exposures.¹

In brief

Australia's borders may be closed, but from the start of the pandemic, Australian courts have continued to grapple with insolvency issues from beyond our shores. Recent cases have expanded the recognition of international insolvency processes in Australia, whilst also highlighting that Australia's own insolvency regimes have application internationally.

Key takeaways

In brief

With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.

In brief

In brief

Creditors commonly find that their applications to wind up a company are suddenly deferred at the last minute by the appointment of a voluntary administrator.  Now, in the early days of the small business restructuring (Part 5.3B) process, the courts are already grappling with those circumstances in the context of that new regime. At the time of writing1, only four restructuring appointments under Part 5.3B have been notified to ASIC. Two of them have been the subject of court proceedings.

The resulting decisions reveal: