In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a judge has discretionary powers to, among other things, order debtor companies into bankruptcy and thereby resolve priority disputes. What should be the standard of review of such discretionary decisions? Historically, the standard has been high.
Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Jetivia S.A. and Another v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation) and Ors should make it easier to pursue claims against rogue directors. The Supreme Court held that, in instances where a company has suffered as a result of the unlawful behaviour of its directors, that behaviour cannot be attributed to the company to disallow the company, or its liquidators, from raising claims against directors for breach of their duties.
Background
On 29 April 2015 The Insolvency Service of the UK Government published updated insolvency statistics which include a breakdown of insolvencies that occurred in 2014 across various industry sectors including the construction industry. There are separate tables of statistics for England and Wales and for Scotland.
The insolvency of Scottish Coal Company Ltd ("SCC") has given rise to two recent Scottish Court of Session cases regarding performance bonds – East Ayrshire Council ("EAC") v Zurich Plc (24 June 2014) and South Lanarkshire Council ("SLC") v Coface SA (27 January 2015).
The insolvency trade body R3 have issued a useful guide to the insolvency process for creditors. The guide can be found here.
A frequent criticism is that the insolvency process (and indeed insolvency practitioners) do not do enough to engage with creditors. Partly this will be because of creditor apathy (who wants to throw good time after bad money?) but partly it is because creditors do not see the insolvency process as being structured to assist them.
The news that USC has taken steps to commence an insolvency process is further proof (if proof were needed) that despite what TS Elliot may have claimed, January really is the cruellest month.
In his November 20, 2014 decision in CanaSea PetroGas Group Holdings Limited (Re), Sharpe J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal did not accept the respondents’ submissions that he should decline to hear an application for leave to appeal a CCAA decision because only a three-judge panel should hear such an application.
The test for an extension of time to serve and file a late Notice of Appeal in Ontario is well-established in the case law:
Background
The ongoing saga of the Scottish Coal Company liquidation provides the background to East Ayrshire Council v Zurich Insurance [2014] CSOH 102.
East Ayrshire Council (EAC) granted planning permission for a surface mine at Dalfad subject to restoration obligations on Scottish Coal. These obligations were secured by a restoration bond granted by Zurich Insurance. Following Scottish Coal's liquidation, it and its liquidators, were unable to carry out the restoration work.