As we reported last week, on November 1, 2019, amendments to both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)

On November 1, 2019, major amendments to theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”) included in Bill C-97[1] and Bill C-86

Yesterday, the Alberta insolvency community breathed a collective sigh of relief as the Alberta Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited decision in Canada v.

On 13 June 2019, the much anticipated DIFC Insolvency Law No. 1 of 2019 and associated DIFC Insolvency Regulations 2019 (collectively the “2019 DIFC Insolvency Law”), came into full force and effect, replacing the DIFC Insolvency Law No. 3 of 2009.

By way of context, the 2019 DIFC Insolvency Law applies only to entities registered and operating within the DIFC.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court settled a long-standing circuit split regarding the impact of bankruptcy filings on trademark licenses. Until May 20th, brand owners in some jurisdictions could use bankruptcy protections to terminate the rights of third parties to use its licensed trademarks. Now, it is clear that a bankrupt licensor cannot rescind trademark license rights. Licensees can continue to do whatever their trademark licenses authorize, even if the licensor has filed for bankruptcy.

As we summarized in a recent Financial Services & Insolvency Communiqué, Saskatchewan has introduced Bill 151 (the Bill) which amends The Personal Property Security Act, 1993 (Saskatchewan) (the PPSA or the Act).

As we summarized in a recent Financial Services & Insolvency Communiqué, Saskatchewan has introduced Bill 151 (the Bill) which amends The Personal Property Security Act, 1993 (Saskatchewan) (the PPSA or the Act).

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has released its decision in Orphan Well Association v.

On January 17, 2019, the Fifth Circuit held that a creditor is not impaired for the purpose of voting on a plan if it is the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to plan treatment) that impairs a creditor’s claim. The court further held that a make-whole premium is a claim for unmatured interest which is not an allowable claim under Bankruptcy Code, absent application of the “solvent-debtor” exception which may or not apply—the issue was remanded to the bankruptcy court for decision.