In the recent landmark decision of The Guarantee Company of North America v.
In Jaycap Financial Ltd v Snowdon Block Inc, 2019 ABCA 47 [Jaycap], the Alberta Court of Appeal recently reminded Receivers that they have a duty to be transparent and provide the Court with evidence to meet the burden of proof to the requisite standard for each application it brings.
The appointment of a receivership is an incredibly useful tool for lawyers. Since it is such a useful tool and due to a recent ruling in Texas, we thought now was as good as any to brush up on our familiarity with receiverships.
On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd, 2019 SCC 5 ("Redwater").
On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., popularly known as Redwater. In a 5-2 split decision, a majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER/Regulator) assertion of its statutory enforcement powers over an insolvent licensee’s assets does not create a conflict with the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) as to trigger the constitutional doctrine of federal paramountcy.
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., known as Redwater.
Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("AP Inc.") and Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. ("APC Inc.") (collectively, the "Applicants") brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court under the CCAA concurrently with a United States Chapter 11 proceeding brought by affiliated entities. the Applicants. desired a managed liquidation process.
The Applicants entered into three stalking horse agreements for approximately $240 million. This compared to the secured claim of $275 million of the major secured creditors of the Applicants.
自己破産というのは、借金を返すことがもう絶対にできないということを裁判所に理解してもらい、法律上で、借金をなくしてもらうことができるやり方です。生活する中で、最低限必要な財産以外のものは、何もかも失うことになります。 日本の国民であるならば、誰もが自己破産ができるのです。
本来、債務は自分で返済すべきですが、どうにも返済の見込みが立たないときには、債務整理を考えてみるべきです。 一般的に債務整理が必要かどうか判断するタイミングというのは、毎月の返済が収入の３割以上に及ぶ場合が妥当な時期のようです。任意整理で弁護士等を訪れるのはこのタイミングが一番多いです。予定していた日に返済が行われないと、貸した側から次の日には支払いに関しての連絡がくるでしょう。
次の支払い予定日を聞かれるのでそこで約束すれば、あとでしつこく電話がかかってくることもありません。
しかし、もしその期日に約束を果たさないと、また催促の連絡がきて、やがて訴訟に発展する可能性もあります。
どうあがいても返済不能な状態に陥ったら、任意整理、個人再生、自己破産といった債務手続きをするという手があります。
どういった形で債務者が借金を整理するかによって債務整理には４つの方法があります。
Whether liquidated damages (LDs) can be claimed after termination is a question which comes up regularly. It is very relevant in the current climate where contracts are often terminated following contractor insolvency. If I were devising a construction law exam paper, this classic question would undoubtedly appear.
On December 27th, Jonathan and I returned to the studio to record the latest podcast for The Bank Account. We haven’t discussed New Year’s Resolutions, but we’ll try to return to a little more normalcy in 2019!