Individuals undergo bankruptcy proceedings for many reasons, chief among them to seek relief from their debts and obtain a fresh financial start. However, the opportunity for a fresh start can be limited when the bankrupt’s debts arise from securities fraud. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Poonian v.

Asset freeze measures enacted by the United Kingdom against designated persons (DPs) can, under certain circumstances, extend to entities “owned or controlled” by DPs. To date, there have been few—and at times partly contradictory—English court cases addressing the “ownership and control” criteria under the UK sanctions regime. The latest judgment in Hellard v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank sought to reconcile the previous guidance provided by the courts in the Mints and Litasco cases.

The US Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 5-4 decision on June 27, 2024 that nonconsensual third-party releases, as proposed in Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy plan, were not permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. A nonconsensual third-party release serves to eliminate the direct claims of third parties against nondebtor parties without soliciting the consent of such affected claimants. This contrasts with consensual releases and opt-in or opt-out mechanisms permitted by courts.

Corporate governance practices are truly put to the test in two instances: 1) the commencement of litigation; and 2) entry into the zone of insolvency. The latter (distressed circumstances) increases the likelihood of the former (claims against directors and officers).

When distressed circumstances do arise, it is critical to ensure that best practices are in place and adhered to. Often, there may be little time in a crisis to consider and adopt new governance practices given the speed at which events may unfold. Directors need to get it right, and quickly.

Fund sponsors continue to face a challenging fundraising market and many are sensitive to increasing investor demand for liquidity. Higher interest rates and public market dislocation continue to make capital-raising difficult, while decreased fund distributions are limiting capital available for new commitments, leading investors to prioritize liquidity and invest cautiously.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) recently revisited the stringent boundaries on the types of claims that can be brought against court-appointed officers. The decision in North v Davison, 2024 ABKB 242 (the Decision) highlighted the protective measures that courts employ to safeguard the integrity and function of receivership proceedings against unfounded or speculative claims. In the Decision, the Court struck down a counterclaim against Ernst & Young Inc.

For most businesses, a decision to undertake an organisational change can mean a reduction in operational costs, a reduction in roles, an increase in efficiencies and streamlined decision-making. However, the announcement of a restructure can often leave staff of all levels feeling tense and uncertain. Effectively navigating organisational change is not something that happens by chance, it requires a clear plan, effective communication and a recognition of risks.

This article will help employers plan for organisational change, identify risks and manage communication.

In a proceeding brought by Mr Curran, in his capacity as the trustee for June Ellen Investment Trust (Plaintiff), to wind up Fitzgerald Housing Limited (formerly known as Kay Fitzgerald Housing Charity Limited) (Defendant), the New South Wales Supreme Court considered whether it was necessary to adjourn the winding up proceeding to allow the Defendant to advance a small business restructuring process (Restructuring).

Bankruptcy litigation can stem well beyond the primary bankruptcy proceedings. Continued litigation may be born out of disputes between bankrupts, bankruptcy trustees and other interested parties in respect of methods of asset liquidation.

Appeals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) generally result in an automatic stay of the order under appeal—a potentially costly and disruptive outcome. Accordingly, the BIA requires by default that an interested party first seek leave to appeal a lower court decision unless its appeal meets a set of prescribed circumstances that appears broad but, in practice, has been construed very narrowly by the courts (i.e., making it difficult to obtain leave to appeal). In Peakhill Capital Inc. v.