The UK retail and hospitality sectors are entering the crucial winter trading period under renewed pressure following the Chancellor’s November Budget. Economic growth remains weak, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its annual economic forecasts through to 2030, signalling that the operating environment for consumer-facing businesses is likely to remain difficult for some time. Meanwhile, insolvency levels continue their upward trajectory: 2,029 company insolvencies were recorded in October 2025, a 17% increase compared with the same month last year.

The insolvency of a premises licence holder has an immediate impact from a licensing perspective. Most premises licences are granted in perpetuity. They can be surrendered by the holder, temporarily lapse if annual fees are not paid, or be revoked following a review. These are actions the licence holder either proactively instigates or is given notice of. However, a licence lapsing because of insolvency is different because the premises licence holder may be unaware that a licence has lapsed and it may be too late to rectify matters when the lapse is brought to their attention.

In the high-stake world of business, deals are often framed as life-or-death decisions. The pressure to close can feel insurmountable, particularly when the stakes are high, and the future of your company hangs in the balance. However, there is no deal you absolutely have to do. No matter how tempting or necessary a deal might appear, the power to walk away is one of the most valuable assets you can wield.

On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.

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.

2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343

On May 6, 2024, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment motion decision in favour of The Toronto-Dominion Bank (“TD Bank”) in 2275518 Ontario Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2024 ONCA 343.^[1]

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.

A Case Comment on AssessNet Inc. v. Ferro Estate, 2023 ONCA 577