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 a significant recent judgment, the ADGM Court has clarified that it has jurisdiction to hear an action for fraudulent trading against the former directors of an onshore UAE company.

By way of background, NMC Healthcare LTD (NMC), and its various subsidiaries, were incorporated in onshore UAE. On 17 September 2020, NMC was redomiciled as an ADGM company. Shortly thereafter, on 27 September 2020, NMC was put into administration pursuant to the ADGM Insolvency Regulations 2015 and joint administrators (the Joint Administrators) appointed.

Since the pandemic, during which insolvency rates were low due to Government measures, there has been a considerable rise in insolvencies in the UK and many other jurisdictions. High interest rates have significantly increased the cost of borrowing and many companies are saddled with mountains of debt that was taken out in better times and which are now difficult to repay. In addition, high inflation and energy costs, lower consumer confidence and volatile supply chains have all contributed to making the last few years very difficult for businesses.

The adage ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’ rings true for the 831 company directors disqualified in 2023/24 for abusing the Covid financial support scheme.

The Superior Court of Quebec rules in favor of Export Development Canada (“EDC”) and enforces a "[unequivocal]" Waiver against the surety who signed it in the context of a loan guarantee granted to the RBC.

Relevant Facts

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

The Kingdom introduced its first ever bankruptcy law in 2018 which has created a foundation for a business rescue culture in Saudi Arabia. Companies undergoing financial difficulties are equipped with the tools that allow them to either trade out of a difficult period or liquidate the business in a manner which does not leave creditors out of pocket. More recently, to complement the existing insolvency regime, rules of cross-border bankruptcy proceedings came into effect on 16 December 2022 (“Rules”).

Employee terminations and downsizing are features of most restructurings. While employees can typically assert a claim in the insolvency process, parallel claims and complaints with labour relations regulators and tribunals are relatively common. In a recent judgment, the Superior Court of Québec clarified that all employee claims can be extinguished through a plan of arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), including those filed before regulators and tribunals.

This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.

In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.