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).

On April 15, 2020, the British Columbia Supreme Court denied an application by a married couple previously found to have contravened B.C. securities laws for an absolute or suspended discharge from bankruptcy under s. 172 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”). The ruling sends a strong message that securities law violators will have difficulty using the bankruptcy process to absolve themselves of the financial consequences of their misdeeds.

In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.

The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.

Introduction

On August 29, 2019, the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314 (Canada North) that priming charges granted in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) Initial Order can have priority over the Crown’s deemed trust for unremitted source deductions. ^[1]

How should the liquidator of an insolvent trustee company ensure payment out of trust assets of the entirety of his or her remuneration and expenses?