We're often asked to advise on what is the appropriate level of liquidated damages for delay in a building contract. Whilst this is a commercial issue and therefore outside the remit of legal advice there are some principles relating to the application of liquidated damages that we can bring to the parties' attention.

This is the message the courts are sending to office holders seeking approval of their fees. In two recent English High Court decisions, both handed down by HHJ Cawson KC, the courts clearly expect office-holders, as fiduciaries, to produce a sufficient and proportionate level of information to justify the level of fees being claimed.

The question of whether it is competent for the court to order a retrospective administration order has been the subject of much debate before the English courts. However, until now, there have been no reported Scottish decisions dealing with the point.

Shareholder disputes can often be complex and emotionally charged, particularly in small or family-owned companies where personal relationships and business interests are deeply intertwined. When such disputes reach an impasse, the law provides several mechanisms for resolution. In particular, disgruntled shareholders have the ability to bring statutory based claims against the company.

A recent chambers decision holding that gross overriding royalties (“GOR”) can be vested off in a reverse vesting order (“RVO”) is on its way up to the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “ABCA”). The ABCA has granted leave to appeal Invico Diversified Income Limited Partnership v NewGrange Energy Inc, 2024 ABKB 214 (“Invico”).

The Chambers Decision

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.

In the Endoceutics case[1], the Superior Court recently clarified the application of section 32 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act

Just over a year ago, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ACKB”) decision in Qualex-Landmark Towers v 12-10 Capital Corp (“Qualex”)[1] extended the application of an environmental regulator’s priority entitlements in bankruptcy and insolvency to civ

One of the primary goals of bankruptcy law is to provide debtors with a fresh start by imposing an automatic stay and allowing for claims of reorganizing debtors to be discharged. In environmental law, a primary goal is to ensure that the “polluter pays” for environmental harms. These two goals collide when an entity with environmental liabilities enters bankruptcy. The result is often outcomes that are the exception, rather than the rule, with many unsettled areas of law that can be dealt with by bankruptcy courts in varying ways.