Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin
A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).
Background
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
Case Trends
On March 23, 2020, we commented on the Quebec Court of Appeal’s decision in the Arrangement relating to Consultants SM inc. case. The City of Montreal (the “City”) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and the appeal was heard on May 20, 2021.
On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court”) dismissed the City’s appeal, thereby rendering an important decision with respect to “pre-post compensation” and “non-dischargeable debts” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”).
Le 23 mars 2020, nous avons commenté l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans le dossier Arrangement relatif à Consultants SM inc. La Ville de Montréal (la « Ville ») a porté cet arrêt devant la Cour suprême du Canada et l’audition du pourvoi a eu lieu le 20 mai 2021.
Le 2 décembre 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec (la « Cour ») a rendu un arrêt important dans l’affaire Syndic de Montréal c’est électrique confirmant la décision du juge de première instance à l’effet que la Ville de Montréal (la « Ville ») ne détenait pas de sûreté sur les sommes détenues dans le compte bancaire de Montréal C’est Électrique (« MCE » ou la « débitrice »).
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.