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).
As we turn to a new year, my wife and I like to reminisce about our best days and milestones of the prior year (for 2023, it was a huge celebration with our best friends for my wife’s birthday, an epic bike ride with our kids on a beautiful day in Kiawah, and seeing “the Boss” in concert in Greensboro). Professionally, I find myself thinking about my friend and mentor, George Cauthen, who reached a milestone and retired from the active practice of law in 2023.
In Matter of Imperial Petroleum Recovery Corp., 84 F.4th 264 (5th Cir. 2023), the Fifth Circuit was asked to address whether 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) – the federal statute providing for post-judgment interest – applies in adversary proceedings even though 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) doesn’t explicitly refer to bankruptcy courts.
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.
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 earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S.
In earlier posts, the Red Zone has discussed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), which held that increased U.S. Trustee quarterly fees for large Chapter 11 debtors between 2018 and 2020 under the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (the “2017 Act”) were unconstitutional because of disparate treatment of Chapter 11 debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator (“BA”) districts, and subsequent judicial decisions determining the appropriate remedy for debtors who overpaid those fees.
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
On July 25, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an important opinion protecting the rights of stalking horse bidders in Section 363 sales. In the Matter of Bouchard Transportation Company, Inc. involved one of the largest petroleum shipping companies in the United States. Bouchard sought to sell a large portion of its assets, consisting of certain vessels, through a Bankruptcy Court approved auction. In anticipation of the auction, Bouchard sought, and the Bankruptcy Court entered a bidding procedures order.
In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.