On October 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two significant decisions1 on the interplay between provincial environmental remediation and federal insolvency orders. The cases are of interest to environmental and insolvency lawyers across Canada. They are equally of interest to taxpayers who foot remediation costs shifted through insolvency.

Background

The Government, has announced that it is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation. Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.

In In re Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd [2013] IEHC 219, the High Court held that it has jurisdiction to wind-up a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, but with its principal place of business in Ireland.

An “Administration Charge” under the CCAA

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (“CCAA”) permits a court having jurisdiction over proceedings for the restructuring of an insolvent company to make certain orders, to secure payment of the fees of certain officials involved in those proceedings, including the Monitor of the insolvent company appointed for the restructuring proceeding.

A surprising judgment re the “Administration Charge”

In its decision in In re Davis Joinery Ltd [2013] IEHC 353, the High Court identified the difficulties that employees of corporate employers may face when their employer ceases trading without taking any steps to formally wind-up the company.

In December 2012 the European Commission issued a policy communication called “A new European Approach to Business Failure and Insolvency” and a proposal to amend the EU Insolvency Regulation

The proposed new European approach to business insolvency focuses on helping sound business to survive, while at the same time protecting creditors’ rights.

The Foley’s/O’Reilly’s bar saga, which played out over a nine month period ending in July 2013, resulted in numerous court applications, three written judgments of the High Court and the appointment at various stages of receivers, interim examiners, examiners and liquidators to the companies involved.

Receivership

The manner in which creditors’ meetings are conducted can often be as significant as the actual outcome of the meeting.  A good example of this can be seen from the recent High Court decision in In re Mountview Foods Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) [2013] IEHC 125.

The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Jan O’Sullivan, TD, has announced that she is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation.  Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.

Section 222 of the Companies Acts 1963 provides that leave of the High Court must be obtained in order to bring or prosecute proceedings against a company which is the subject of a winding-up order.  In In re MJBCH Ltd: Mary Murphy [2013] IEHC 256, the High Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to grant leave retrospectively under this section.