La Cour supérieure du district de Québec est saisie d’une requête en homologation d’une proposition aux termes de l’article 58 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (la « LFI »). Le tribunal précise que son rôle n’est pas de modifier le contenu du concordat qui a déjà été accepté par les créanciers mais qu’il ne peut que l’approuver ou le rejeter.

Avant de rendre sa décision, la Cour fait état de la « controverse jurisprudentielle » quant à la nécessité de signifier au préalable les préavis d’exercice du droit hypothécaire du Code civil du Québec avant d’être autorisé à procéder à une vente d’actifs en vertu de l’article 243 LFI. Trois (3) décisions en ce sens ont été rendues par la Cour du district de Saint-François à ce sujet, alors qu’une (1) décision rendue dans le district de Montréal est à l’effet contraire.

We are asked from time to time to assist with the dissolution of an existing registered charity.  However, often we suggest to our clients that it might be better for them to either amalgamate the existing charity into another charity or keep it in existence but inactive.

There are various reasons why charities wish to dissolve.  Sometimes the problem that they were established to address has been solved.  Sometimes there is no leadership left to govern or manage the charity.  Other times the work once done by the charity has been taken over by another charity.

One of the primary reasons why people declare bankruptcy is that upon being discharged, the bankrupt person is released from their obligation to repay most of the debts that had existed at the time they went bankrupt. I say most because there are certain exceptions to this rule, debts that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Actitemizes as debts not released by an order of discharge.

On 30 October 2014, the English High Court sanctioned the second scheme of arrangement for the APCOA group (the “Scheme”). APCOA has been one of the hottest names in the restructuring market in 2014. First, it broke new ground in relation to an “amend and extend” scheme in early 2014 when it established sufficient connection to England off the back of a change in governing law. Second, the Scheme was aggressively opposed and its sanction by the High Court was appealed to the Court of Appeal (although ultimately the appeal was withdrawn).

During its 44th congress in Toronto, on September 17, 2014, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) adopted a resolution on "IP Licensing and Insolvency". The resolution regarding "Question Q241" can be accessed via AIPPI's website using the following link:https://www.aippi.org/download/commitees/241/RS241English.pdf.

The Resolution 

Intellectual property rights are meant to protect that which cannot be easily protected: ideas, images, music and brands. The creators of these intangible concepts are given an economic monopoly over them, in the hopes of fostering greater creativity and economic growth. Bankruptcy law, on the other hand, seeks to equitably distribute the property of the bankrupt among its creditors, subject to the rights of secured creditors.  There is an inherent conflict between the rights of two groups.

Directors of ‘can pay, won‘t pay’ award debtors face the prospect of an extended stay in England should they choose to defy a receivership order granted by the English Court in aid of enforcement.

Introduction

The UK has long-since established itself as a jurisdiction of choice for complex cross-border restructurings involving corporate groups whose principal operations are overseas.

One of the recent hot topics in the European restructuring market has been whether the UK Courts would sanction a scheme of arrangement in relation to a foreign company, with no previous connection to the UK whatsoever, where the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction to undertake the scheme would be amending the governing law and jurisdiction clauses of the company’s principal finance documents to English law.