In late May, the Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC) denied an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the ABCA), which, in turn, had denied leave to appeal of the decision of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the ABKB) in Re Mantle Materials Group, Ltd, 2023 ABKB 488 (Mantle KB).
In Bolwell & Anor v NWC Finance Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] VSC 30, the Supreme Court of Victoria clarified that a lawyer will not be a "controller" of property within the meaning of section 9 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) simply because it was retained to act for a mortgagee exercising their power of sale.
This judgment provides comfort to lawyers as it confirms that they will not assume the obligations of a "controller" under the Act solely by reason of them acting in connection with the sale of real property in an insolvency context.
The England and Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down its first judgment relating to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the UK Companies Act 2006: Re AGPS Bondco Plc [2024] EWCA Civ 24. Restructuring plans were a 2020 innovation in UK insolvency law, as described in our earlier alert.
In a welcome clarification for administrators, the UK Supreme Court in the recent case of R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court[1], held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an “officer” of the company for the purposes of section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd., 2019 SCC 5 [Redwater], applies in Saskatchewan. The Court of Appeal also affirmed that orders made in failed proceedings in Alberta under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCCA) did not have effect in subsequent receivership proceedings in Saskatchewan.
On 19 July 2023, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Luxembourg) passed bill no. 6539A into law (the New Insolvency Law), marking a significant milestone in the movement to modernise and enhance the competitiveness of Luxembourg’s insolvency framework. The bill has been under discussion for a number of years and aims to curtail the use of bankruptcy as an insolvency solution in favour of the preemptive preservation or reorganisation of financially distressed companies.
It has long been established that where the circumstances in which funds are advanced by a shareholder to the company in which they own shares is unclear, the court must consider the "surrounding circumstances" when determining how to characterize the advance. Historically, "surrounding circumstances" were understood to be the circumstances extant at the time the transaction was effected: (e.g., Ghassemvand v. Premium Weatherstripping Inc., 2017 BCCA 309 [Ghassemvand]).
In this client alert, we set out the key findings by the Court of Appeal in Darty Holdings SAS v Geoffrey Carton-Kelly [2023] EWCA Civ 1135, which considers an appeal against the High Court decision that a repayment by Comet Group plc (“Comet”) of £115 million of unsecured intra-group debt to Kesa International Ltd (“KIL”) was a preference under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
Background to the Case
Whilst commonplace in the U.S., uptier transactions in which a borrower teams up with a subset of creditors to issue new “super priority” debt by amending or exchanging existing debt documents, have not been widely used in Europe.
However, with increasing macro economic pressures and financial market instability, we may see more European borrowers taking advantage of flexibility in cov-lite debt documentation to implement liability management transactions as an alternative to, or even as part of, more formal restructurings.
This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses whether text messages can violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s prohibition on “prerecorded voice” messages, and it considers whether debtors who paid statutory fees under an unconstitutionally nonuniform bankruptcy provision are entitled to a refund.