In the recent judgment of Gorbunova v The Estate of Boris Berezovsky (deceased) and others¹ the High Court has provided useful guidance as to when summary judgment is appropriate in deciding whether a trust was established.

This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through - Ship Finance: Updates and Trends and is reproduced with permission.

The terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will inevitably dictate the extent to which Brexit impacts upon financial agreements. As this stage, it is important to consider the clauses which may have to be reviewed.

Most trading contracts contain specific terms setting out the consequences of a counterparty insolvency or other default. This article explores whether, and in what circumstances, it may be sensible to invoke rights under such clauses or whether it can be better to adopt a more “wait and see” attitude. We also look at drafting options prior to finalising contract terms.

When considering how to respond to a counterparty event of default (EOD), relevant considerations will include potential consequences:

In the recent case of Greece v Stroumpoulis on 25 February 2016, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that EU protections under the Insolvency Directive apply to EU residents working in the EU, regardless of whether their employer is an EU company. The ECJ reached this decision based on the social objective of the Insolvency Directive, irrespective of the maritime waters on which the vessel sailed.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a reminder for secured lenders of the importance of perfecting a security interest by registration. Absent perfection, collateral is at risk of seizure by judgment creditors of the borrower. Perfection, however, insures that a creditor has a priority interest in collateral over any subsequent judgment creditor. The decision also shows the importance to vendors of conducting continuous diligence on customers when credit is being extended on a regular basis.

Backround

On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].¹ In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.

As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank

In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.

On 28 April 2016, the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (Commencement) Order 2016 was made. It provides for the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the New Act) to come into force on 1 August 2016.

A party to arbitration or court proceedings in Australia can obtain a freezing order in advance of obtaining a domestic court judgment or arbitration award, in prescribed circumstances. In PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2015]¹ the High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian courts have the same power to grant freezing orders prior to a judgment or award being obtained in respect of proceedings commenced outside of Australia, provided that judgment or award would be enforceable in Australia.