The English Court of Appeal has recently decided that a corporation that held shares in a company remained a shareholder notwithstanding the shareholding company's dissolution.

BWE Estates Limited had two shareholders: an individual named David who held 75% of its shares and a company, Belvedere Limited, which held the remaining 25%. Although Belvedere was dissolved in 1996, it remained listed as a shareholder in BWE's share register.

In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.

In a second application heard on the same day, Hildyard J considered an application by the administrators of Lehman Brothers Europe Limited (LBEL) for directions that would enable a surplus to be distributed to the sole member of LBEL while LBEL remained in administration. The proposed scheme had material benefits for both shareholders and creditors. The administrators acknowledged that the orders sought were an indirect means of circumventing the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK), which does not expressly provide for directors to make distributions during an administration.

The Court of Appeal has recently dismissed an appeal from the High Court's judgment (discussed in our September 2016 update) setting aside a compromise under Part 14 of the Companies Act 1993 after finding that the challenging creditors, who had voted against the compromise, had been unfairly prejudiced by the decision to call only one meeting of creditors.

In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.

Where a tenant becomes insolvent, landlords are often faced with a courtappointed Receiver inserted in place of the insolvent debtor who wishes to operate the tenant’s business or conduct a sale of assets on site. While the landlord may be able to successfully negotiate payment of occupation rent, a common issue that arises iswho is responsible for any damages to the leased premises? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in General Motors Corporation v.

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.

Significant insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in Bill C-55 which received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005 and in Bill C-12 which received Royal assent on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until September 18, 2009.

After years of waiting, significant amendments to the Canadian regime of bankruptcy and insolvency law were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (Amendments).