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.
At-a-glance cases provided by Gatehouse Chambers’ Insolvency Team, featuring:
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.
This appeal concerned (inter alia) whether an application for an order for sale made under s.335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA 1986’) should be made by an application notice issued under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (‘IR 2016) or by a Part 8 Claim Form issued under the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’).
Factual Background
These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.
This summary covers:
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.