In its recent decision in Chandos Construction Ltd. v Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) affirmed the place of the ‘anti-deprivation rule’ in Canadian common law and provided guidance on its application.[1] This rule invalidates contractual terms that would remove value from a debtor’s estate and reduce the assets available for distribution amongst creditors.
Recent M&A deals the teams have worked on involving insolvent corporates have highlighted the challenges which exist around the transfer of customer lists and databases, which are often a significant asset for the buyer.
Where the contractor has become insolvent, what obligations can an employer enforce when stepping-in to a previously novated professional consultant’s appointment in a design and build scenario?
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 was passed on 25 June 2020. The legislation has been in contemplation for a number of years, and has implemented a significant reform to the UK's restructuring and insolvency framework. It has also implemented certain temporary measures that are designed to protect and support businesses, protect jobs and, in doing so, attempt to preserve the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recent Hong Kong cases have highlighted varying approaches regarding the impact of arbitration clauses on insolvency proceedings, in particular, on the Court’s discretion to make a winding-up order where a debt is disputed.
Recent judgments have varied between the so-called Traditional Approach which requires the company-debtor to show a genuine dispute on substantial grounds and the Lasmos Approach which requires the company only to commence arbitration in a timely manner.
Summary
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) came into force on 26 June 2020 after a fast-tracked consultation process. Intended to provide a lifeline to struggling businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, it consists of temporary measures, meant to alleviate the short-term disruption caused by the pandemic and permanent measures, which are more broadly designed to assist companies in times of difficulty.
In Séquestre de Média5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943 (« Media5 »), the Quebec Court of Appeal unanimously held that, in order bring a motion for the appointment of a receiver under s.243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), a secured creditor must not only have given the notice required under s.244 of the BIA, it must also have served the prior notice of the exercise of a hypothecary right required under the Civil code of Quebec (“CCQ”), and both notice periods must have expired.
As most global markets attempt a return to normal (or a new form of normal) business, it is hard to imagine a sector or an industry that isn’t already reeling from the effects of the past three months. Getting back on your feet is hard enough in the current environment, without having to worry about further setbacks impacting your business. But how would you react if your key supplier called tomorrow to let you know that they were insolvent and unable to provide you with goods or services?
For some time we have been following with interest the case of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd as it progresses through the courts. Why? Because this concerns an important question which comes up time and time again: are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency set off compatible?
Part II: Customer Considerations: Risk Mitigation = Smarter Sales
In the coming months, very few companies, whether public or private, will be able to avoid including statements in their quarterly reports or financials that attribute single or double digit percentage declines in revenue to doubtful accounts and insolvencies of major customers caused by the pandemic. For many, if not most, that disclosure will continue beyond Q4 of 2020 and through 2021.