The interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings has been a recurring theme across common law jurisdictions in recent months. It is therefore timely to consider the conflict between parties' contractual rights to arbitrate and their statutory rights to present a winding up petition and how a balance can be struck when determining which should prevail.
Introduction
The appointment of joint liquidators can be a useful tool in cross-border insolvency proceedings, particularly when assets are located in a number of jurisdictions. However, courts must ensure that a joint liquidator appointment does not lead to conflicting duties based on the respective laws in each jurisdiction. This was the main issue for consideration in West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Hatfield Property Ltd, where Jack J was satisfied that the appointment of joint liquidators was necessary.
A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.1 The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Introduction
Overview
This bulletin is the first of a Fasken series about the recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Yukon in the ongoing receivership proceedings of Yukon Zinc Corporation (“Yukon Zinc”), indexed as 2021 YKCA 2. The decision addresses several important issues, including: (i) the scope of Section 14.06(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), which creates the Crown’s super priority charge for environmental remediation over the real property of a debtor; and (ii) Crown claims relating to unfurnished security or future costs.
A recent decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal has confirmed that, whilst the courts of the British Virgin Islands (BVI) will recognise the appointment of foreign representatives (including liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy) as having status in the BVI in accordance with his or her appointment by a foreign court, they may only provide assistance to representatives from certain designated countries.
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 »).
What a creditor needs to know about liquidating GUIDE an insolvent Cayman company
Last reviewed: December 2020
Contents
Introduct ion When is a company insolvent? What is a statutory demand?
The year 2020 is drawing to an end and the construction industry is gearing up for what is typically referred to as the builders break over the December holidays. A lot of construction companies will find the 2020 builder’s break to be very different to those of previous years, due to the negative impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the construction industry, and the world at large.
On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its reasons for the ruling rendered on January 23, 2020, which allowed the appeal by 9354-9186 Québec Inc. and 9354-9178 Québec Inc. (collectively, "Bluberi")[1]. The SCC's ruling set aside the Québec Court of Appeal's (the "Court of Appeal") ruling, thereby restoring the first instance judgment of the Superior Court of Québec ("Superior Court").
On 21 April 2020, just over a week before the anticipated end of the South African national lockdown, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced further economic and social relief measures in response to the COVID-19 epidemic. This comes at a time when South Africa teeters towards a food and humanitarian crisis of “biblical proportions”.
