The Corporate Enforcement Authority recently published its guidance note on EU Directive 2019/1023 known as the "Preventive Restructuring Directive", which you will find here (Information Note).

On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its long-awaited decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41(“Peace River”), which addresses the interaction between insolvency law's single proceeding model and arbitration law’s emphasis on contractually bargained-for rights – an interaction often described as “a conflict of near polar extremes”.

Background

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25 concerning the trigger point at which directors must have regard to the interests of creditors pursuant to s.172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (the "creditors' interests duty").

Readers will recall, on April 1, 2020 the RF President signed RF Law No. 98-FZ, amending RF Law No. 127-FZ On Insolvency (Bankruptcy) of October 26, 2002 (the Law) and authorising the Government to impose a moratorium on creditors’ initiation of bankruptcies to stabilize the economy in exceptional cases (a Moratorium).

Immediately thereafter, by Decree No. 428 of April 3, 2020 as part of the COVID-19 relief program, the Government adopted such a Moratorium until 7 January 2021 (the COVID Moratorium).

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in Re Harte Gold Corp.,^[1]issued its first published decision on the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) finding that the

A limitation period is the statutory time limit set out in law for a person to file a lawsuit as a result of some loss or damage. Each Canadian province has a specific statutory framework governing limitation periods for legal matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces use a “discoverability” scheme under which a person must commence legal proceedings within two years of specific factual elements being “discovered” by the person.

In this article, Dentons gives its inside view on the pre-pack evaluator's report, made compulsory earlier this year to improve the confidence of creditors in pre-pack administration sales to connected persons. We consider the practicalities of selecting the right evaluator for the job, the potential for "opinion shopping" from evaluators and whether these new regulations have achieved what was intended.

A recap on pre-packs

Executive summary

Au cours des deux dernières années, les ordonnances de dévolution inversée (« ODI ») sont passées de concept inaperçu à l’outil de choix dans de nombreuses restructurations complexes menées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Comme les spécialistes en restructuration recourent de plus en plus aux ODI, la question se pose : les ODI remplaceront-elles les plans traditionnels pris en vertu de la LACC?

In the past two years, reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have gone from obscurity to being the tool of choice in many complex restructurings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). As restructuring practitioners increasingly employ RVOs, it begs the question: Will RVOs replace traditional CCAA plans?