In a recent case involving Mantle Materials Group, Ltd. (2023 ABKB 488, “Mantle“), the intersection of environmental obligations and insolvency law in Canada has again come into sharp focus.

The stakes in the appeal from a recent case in Alberta,  Qualex-Landmark Towers  Inc  v  12-10  Capital Corp (“Qualex”) are rising with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta granting leave to intervene to the Canadian Bankers Association [Qualex-Landmark Towers Inc v 12-10 Capital Corp, 2023 ABCA 177].  The Canadian Bankers Association sought leave to intervene on the basis that the decision in Qualex creates significant uncertainty for secured lending, particularly where the borrower may have environmental remediat

“An appeal”, explained one of my law school professors as he stretched out his arms, “is like taking off in a plane. Unless you understand the rules of physics, you won’t get the plane off the ground, no matter what grade of jet fuel is in the tank.”

In 2011, the Spanish legislator introduced the court-sanctioned refinancing agreement (‘Spanish Scheme’) in the Spanish insolvency system. While the introduction of the Spanish Scheme has been praised for providing new tools for debtors to reorganise out-of-court while addressing the collective action problem, certain of its provisions have made this instrument too rigid and, thus, ineffective for tackling Spanish restructurings.

Compensation of a debt made after the debtor’s bankruptcy declaration via the appropriation of securities pledged by virtue of a financial guarantee, is admitted.

The validity of a transaction assessed as “compensation” that was carried out after the bankruptcy declaration of the company in debt was questioned before the Supreme Court. The credit entity applied the value obtained from the reimbursement of an investment fund that had been pledged to secure a credit policy to reduce the debt.

JUDGEMENTS NO. 541/2012, OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, BY THE ZARAGOZA BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOS. 413/2011, OF DECEMBER 19, AND 18/2012, OF JANUARY 18, BY THE BURGOS BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NO. 132/2012, OF APRIL 10, BY THE RULING OF THE VALENCIA BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, AND NOS. 210/2012 AND 211/2012, BOTH OF JULY 20, BY THE ALICANTE COMMERCIAL COURT

Guarantees granted by a group company for securing a loan used to repay the insolvent party’s personal debts are detrimental to the insolvency estate. Article 10 of the Mortgage Market Act refers solely to mortgages that are already part of an issue of mortgage securities.

The Supreme Court sets a precedent regarding the bankruptcy classification of the credits arising from contracts with reciprocal obligations whose performance is ordered by the judge in the interest of the bankruptcy: these are credits against the bankrupt estate independently of when they are originated.

The Supreme Court rescinded a payment made to the creditor that petitioned for compulsory insolvency in a case where the creditor withdrew its petition and the debtor applied for voluntary bankruptcy several weeks later.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court made the following significant assertions in respect of insolvency rescission of payments:

Under Additional Provision Four of the Insolvency Act,¹ which regulates the courts’ sanction of refinancing agreements, the effects of the moratorium established in the agreement will be extended to dissenting financial entities, provided that the conditions specified in that precept are fulfilled (where the requisites imposed under article 71.6 of the Insolvency Act regarding the agreement itself are met and where it has been signed by creditors representing at least 75% of the financial entities’ liabilities at the time of the agreement).