Fulltext Search

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

On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision rejecting the nonconsensual releases of the Sackler family in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case. The split is an interesting alignment of Justices: Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, joined by Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson; Kavanaugh for the dissent, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy has long been thought of as anathema to commercial real estate (CRE) lenders. This is due to the debtor-friendly bankruptcy forum, particularly with respect to (i) the up to 18 month exclusivity period during which only the debtor could propose a plan of reorganization and (ii) threats of a "cram-down" plan used to lever concessions from lenders. These provisions can be, and often were, abused by debtors with no real rehabilitative intent using bankruptcy only as a leverage tool.

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

Recent teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada court in Canada v Canada North Group Inc., 2021 SCC 30 [Canada North] had confirmed that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (‘CCAA’) courts could grant super-priority charges (e.g. interim financing, administration charge, or directors’ and officers’ charges) ranking in priority to s.

Executive Summary

In a radical departure from settled case law, the English High Court has eroded the protections of English law creditors guaranteed by the Rule in Gibbs1 .

Executive Summary

Investors in LMA-based intercreditor agreements1 (ICA) should be reassured by the commercial approach recently taken by the High Court in construing the "Distressed Disposal" provisions (DD Provisions).

Close economic ties and interdependence between the US and Canada have been bolstered by free trade policies and intensified global competition, paving the way for continued opportunities for US businesses to tap into the Canadian market. These opportunities have resulted in an active cross-border lending market. In light of this, US lenders who are lending into Canada may encounter, and should be aware of, Canadian-specific legal issues and considerations.

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。