This blog refers to Bettina Goletz’s blog on “Limits on non-compete and non-solicitation clauses under German law”. We have recently been asked whether the employee is entitled to compensation payments under a post-contractual non-compete clause in the situation where the employing company files for insolvency.

Introduction

When the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) was introduced into Australian law in 2008, Australian admiralty practitioners expressed concern that the legislation which enacted the Model Law into Australian law did not take into account its potential impact on the right to arrest a ship in Australia.  The concern was that the Model Law would prevent parties from arresting ships in Australia, if the shipowner or charterer was the subject of foreign insolvency proceedings.  

Norton Rose Fulbright’s Employment and Labour Team in Montréal raised a preliminary objection against an arbitrator’s jurisdiction on the basis of orders rendered pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“), which was upheld and led to the dismissal of the grievance.

Employees’ rights in bankruptcy in the UAE On the face of it, employees’ rights in the UAE seem to be well protected by the bankruptcy laws. Under Article 713(1) of Federal Law No. 18 of 1993 (Commercial Transactions Law), the wages and salaries of workers that have become due 30 days prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy may be paid on a super-priority level (“regardless of any other debt”) by the bankruptcy trustee. However, there is some uncertainty as to whether employees would be paid before secured creditors as the bankruptcy laws remain largely untested in the UAE courts.

The Ninth Circuit has extended an additional level of protection for company publications that take the form of blogs. In reference to the level of fault required to prove liability for an allegedly defamatory posting, the court explained that it is irrelevant whether a blogger is a member of an institutional press corps or a private entity.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in (Re) Indalex has changed the landscape for both lenders and borrowers in Canada who sponsor registered defined benefit pension plans. For lenders, carefully drafted loan documentation and effective planning can enhance the protection of a secured lender’s position in the face of the broadened scope of a deemed trust applicable to a borrower’s defined benefit pension obligations.

In (Re) Indalex, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) affirmed the super-priority of the security granted to a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lender, over a deemed trust created under provincial pension legislation, in the context of a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding. The SCC’s analysis leaves open further issues.

In Re Sino-Forest Corporation¹, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation of “equity claims” employed by Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List).

In turbulent and uncertain financial times, employers and employees more often than ever find themselves immersed in and affected by insolvency proceedings. Particularly for employees, there is often misunderstanding and misinformation respecting the nature of the proceedings and employees’ rights thereunder. In this article, after a brief description of the most common forms of insolvency proceedings in Canada, the rights and entitlements of employees under these proceedings will be discussed.

Bankruptcy

Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),¹  courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements.  While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility.  The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP