In our update this month we take a look at a case in which a non-party costs order was made against a major shareholder in the insolvent claimant company. The court found that the shareholder was the real party to the litigation; it funded the litigation, it was exercising control over the litigation and it would have been the main beneficiary had the litigation succeeded. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry:

Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Jones & Others (2017)

Background

Bankruptcy & restructuring

The economies of the United States (U.S.) and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business — particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

1. Legislation and court system

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37656

Norris Barens v. Her Majesty the Queen (B.C.)

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Constitutional law – Mobility rights

The applicant was convicted of driving without a licence contrary to s. 24(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 318.

Two key changes made to Australian insolvency law enhance restructuring efforts in Australia and could improve outcomes for US investors.

In a recent decision[1], the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) determined that purported secured loans made by a shareholder were properly characterized as equity contributions to the subject company and therefore subordinate to the claims of the company’s creditors.

The court awarded OpCo Noteholders in excess of $320 million in Make-Whole Amount and post-petition interest, confirming that make-whole is an enforceable liquidated damage claim.

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Single signature bank mandate binding on partnership

The High Court has recently considered whether a one signature bank mandate was sufficient to bind a partnership to various loan agreements.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a term could not be implied into a conditional fee agreement between a liquidator and solicitors, and that the solicitors would only be paid out of recoveries made. However, the liquidator was not liable for the fees because of a common understanding between the parties. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry, in our regular update:

We recently reported on the first judgment handed down in relation to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the TP Act 2010). Hot on the heels of that decision another judgment has been delivered, this one providing guidance on the transitional provisions of the Act.

This month we consider the court's refusal to imply an obligation into a loan agreement that a lender should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security; the court's view on the failure to heed alarm bells in relation to potential undue influence; and more cases and issues affecting the industry.

No implied term in a loan agreement that creditor should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security