In 2016, the High Court determined that a person may propose to do something without having a settled intention to do it and dismissed an application for an order removing a fourth notice of intention from the court file. At the time the fourth notice was filed, the director only intended to appoint administrators if a CVA proposal was rejected by creditors.

This article looks at how to deal with bankrupt Claimants and the effect that their bankruptcy has on both pre and post litigated claims, where the Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) may continue to pursue the claim. We have focused on the law surrounding bankruptcy including what types of claim remain vested in a Claimant as well as how to deal with such a claim and issues that may arise.

This article deals with the effect on claims, both pre-litigation and post, which are driven by Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) who are insolvent or begin an insolvency process. We have focused on practical considerations to identify such claims as well as what you will need to bear in mind when handling credit hire claims where the CHO is insolvent.

Background

There are three main strands: -

Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.

The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.

In Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc[1] [Chandos], the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.

Il est notoire que le contrat, en raison de son caractère obligatoire, sera considéré comme étant la loi des parties [1].

Historically, an assignment of claims pursuant to s. 38 of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)[1] has only been used in the context of an assignment in bankruptcy. For instance, the use of s.

In its most recent decision, Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the existence of the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.

On July 27, 2020, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (the “Court”) released its decision in Great North Data Ltd., (Re),[1] where Justice Handrigan outlined principles for courts to consider when exercising their power under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.