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.
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.
In its recent opinion in Raymond James & Associates Inc. v. Jalbert (In re German Pellets Louisiana LLC), 23-30040, 2024 WL 339101 (5th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that a confirmed bankruptcy plan enjoined a party from asserting certain indemnification counterclaims against a plan trustee because the party did not file a proof of claim.
Background
Whether a solar system is a “fixture” sounds like a mundane legal issue – but it has significant implications for the residential solar industry and for the financing of residential solar systems. If a system is regarded as a “fixture” of the house to which it is attached, then the enforceability and priority of the finance company’s lien on the system will be subject to applicable real estate law.
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.
If your company is named in a new lawsuit or receives a EEOC charge, part of your review process should include checking to see if the filing complainant or plaintiff has a pending bankruptcy action. If so, the next step is to see if the claimant disclosed their lawsuit or administrative complaint in his or her bankruptcy petition. If not, you may have a successful estoppel argument.
In insolvency proceedings, it can be difficult to navigate how to close out a transaction with an insolvent counterparty without suffering excessive collateral damage. One question that may arise in this process is whether a contract with the insolvent party can be relied upon. Canadian insolvency laws provide special treatment for a certain category of contracts called eligible financial contracts (EFCs).
简介
最近在Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam [2023] HKCFA 9一案中，香港终审法院澄清，如果受争议的呈请债务所涉及的协议载有专属司法管辖权条款（「专属条款」），法院应如何处理清盘及破产呈请。
案情
上诉人于2017年与CP Global Inc（「该公司」）及答辩人订立了一份信贷及担保协议（「信贷协议」）。据此，上诉人向该公司提供定期贷款，答辩人就该公司结欠上诉人的所有款项提供个人担保。信贷协议载有专属条款，就该协议所产生或与之有关的所有法律程序赋予纽约法院专属司法管辖权。
于2020年，上诉人认为发生了信贷协议所指的违约事件，故要求答辩人支付信贷协议项下的未偿还本金及利息。答辩人未有按上诉人的要求还款，因此上诉人在香港针对答辩人展开破产法律程序。另一方面，答辩人在纽约提起诉讼，请求法院求宣告并无发生信贷协议下的违约事件。
答辩人反对在香港提出破产呈请的主要理由之一，是专属条款规定上诉人须首先在纽约法院就双方争议进行诉讼，然后才可在香港展开破产程序。