On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), on whether financial sanctions imposed by securities regulators are dischargeable through bankruptcy. The decision resolves a conflict between Alberta and B.C. jurisprudence and will have a significant impact on the treatment of all administrative orders in bankruptcy proceedings.
The facts
In the twelfth edition of the Going concerns, we cover set-offs and the net result of a creditor dealing with a company in liquidation; the first cross-border pre-pack scheme filed in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") by a foreign unregistered company that has been successfully sanctioned in Singapore: Re No Va Land Investment Group Corporation [2024] SGHC(I) 17 ("No Va Land"); and UAE's new bankruptcy law that came into effect on 1 May 2024, a relatively substantial overhaul of the onshore insolvency and restructuring regime in the UAE.
En 2023, le nombre de défaillances d’entreprises est en hausse par rapport à l’année précédente. À cela s’ajoutent le rallongement des délais de paiement, l’inflation, des taux d’intérêt toujours élevés...À la lumière dececlimat monétaire et financier instable se profile la gestion du risque crédit.
Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) provides a flexible tool that allows corporations to achieve important change and undertake various corporate transactions, subject to court approval and oversight. This article aims to provide an update on the Québec courts’ acceptance of virtual securityholder meetings and approach to the solvency requirement.
Overview of the arrangement process
In this eleventh edition of the Going concerns, we touch upon the clarity provided by the Singapore Court of Appeal in the recognition of foreign solvent liquidations in Singapore, a potential new tool against debtors defrauding creditors, and an update on the sanction of an administrative convenience class in the Singapore High Court.
We hope you enjoyed this edition of the Going concerns and we look forward to your continued support in the coming editions of the same. As usual, please feel free to contact us should you like to learn more on any topic.
Content
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
Introduction
A recent Commercial Court decision has raised an intriguing question of private international law: can a foreign judgment be enforced in England and Wales if it is not enforceable in the country where it was given?
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case
Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.
However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.