Urbancorp Inc., a large real estate development company involved in various projects in the Greater Toronto Area, became subject to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") in April of 2016. Alan Saskin, Urbancorp's President and primary shareholder, filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal (the "NOI") in his personal capacity under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") shortly thereafter.
Briefings
A recent ruling by the English High Court in BILTA v RBS1, concerning EU Emissions Allowances (“EUAs” or “carbon-credits”) trading has re-opened the debate on when materials forming part of an internal investigation can benefit from litigation privilege. The decision further undermines the restrictive approach taken by Andrews J in SFO v ENRC2 when applying the “sole or dominant purpose test” to dual-purpose communications.
Background – Emissions Trading Fraud
The professional indemnity insurer of an insolvent independent financial adviser (Target) successfully relied on an insolvency exclusion in the policy to deny liability to third party (former) clients of Target1.
In 2005 Target had advised Mr. and Mrs. Crowden to invest £200,000 in a “Secure Income Bond” issued by SLS Capital SA in Luxembourg and Keydata Investment Ltd.2 SLS went into liquidation in 2009.
The High Court has considered a recent Court of Appeal ruling on whether trustees in bankruptcy should be able to deploy privileged documents in the discharge of their duties.
The existing position under Avonwick
The facts of Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1138 involved a company called Webinvest. Webinvest was beneficially owned by Mr Shlosberg. Avonwick lent US$100 million to Webinvest, with Mr Shlosberg personally guaranteeing the loan.
This case clarifies that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) does not apply retrospectively, such that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the 1930 Act), and only the 1930 Act, will continue to apply in circumstances in which both (i) the insured's insolvency occurred; and (ii) the insured's liability was incurred, prior to 1 August 2016.
BACKGROUND
In Royal Bank of Canada v. Casselman, three motions were brought before the Court. First, a continuation of a motion for approval and directions brought by the receiver. Second, a motion to allow counsel for the debtor to withdraw as lawyer of record. Third, a motion by the Sexton Group Ltd.
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance (CFI) has issued a judgment1 examining the instances in which the Hong Kong courts will exercise their jurisdiction to wind-up a foreign company.
In a welcome decision the CFI has made it clear that, given certain conditions, creditors will be able to enlist the winding-up jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts in order to exert pressure on foreign companies which refuse to pay their debts.
The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.
In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.
Most commodities contracts are cross border, often with one or more parties located in a country where gaining access or cooperation to enforce an arbitration award or court judgment can be challenging.
If your counterparty is in a ‘difficult’ country, is there any point in incurring the time and cost of pursuing a claim in arbitration or litigation against them at all? Alternatively, do you already have awards or judgments against parties that you have not found a way to enforce? Are they worth any more than the paper they are written on?