Fulltext Search

In Chandos Construction Ltd. v Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the application of the common law anti-deprivation rule in the context of a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proceeding.

The United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced that certain temporary measures put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which became law on 26 June 2020, will be extended.

Statutory Demands and Winding-Up Petitions

Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Urbancorp Cumberland 2 GP Inc. (Re)[PDF], which clarifies the scope and effectiveness of a section 9(1) vendor’s trust under the Ontario Construction Lien Act in insolvency proceedings.

On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the QCA) released its reasons in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation,[1] putting an end to a long-lasting debate on the availability of national receivers to Québec secured creditors.

As we attempt to mitigate the potential effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our global supply chain, stakeholders should be actively considering downstream impacts. In this current environment, considering prospective internal and external bankruptcy and restructuring threats may be more important than ever.

On May 21, 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) released its reasons in Arrangement relatif à 9323-7055 Québec inc. (Aquadis International Inc.)[1](the Aquadis case).

Executive Summary

  • New legislation will introduce permanent and temporary reforms to the UK restructuring and insolvency regime
  • Permanent reforms: company moratoriums; restructuring plans; the prohibition of insolvency termination clauses in supply contracts
  • Temporary reforms: suspension of the director wrongful trading offence; restriction on the service of statutory demands and winding up petitions

Overview

Introduction

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its written reasons in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp.[1](the Bluberi case).