Un torréfacteur manufacturier de café veut pétitionner en faillite son distributeur dans la région de l’Estrie. Cette procédure de faillite est assortie d’une demande pour ordonnance de sauvegarde afin que le tribunal prononce l’annulation de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation.

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.

On 15 January 2015, it was announced that the bankruptcy creditor petition limit will be increased from £750 to £5,000 following a consultation into insolvency proceedings.

Business Minister, Jo Swinson said:

In Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297, it was held that the appointment of Law of Property Act Receivers by a mortgagee because the borrower lacked the mental capacity to manage his financial affairs was valid even if the borrower was mentally fit by the time of the appointment. It was further held that the treatment of the borrower by the lender in such circumstances did not give rise to an unfair relationship under ss 140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974).

Background

In Spencer Day v Tiuta International Ltd and other [2014] EWCA Civ 1246, the Court held that a creditor who relies on subrogation is still a secured creditor, and therefore cannot be subject to a set off claim for unliquidated damages as per Natwest v Skelton (1993).

Background

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.

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.

In Credit and Mercantile Plc v (1) Kaymuu Ltd (2) Kevin Michael Wishart and (3) Ian Mark Defty (as Trustee in Bankruptcy for Mr Sami Muduroglu) [2014] EWHC 1746, the court held that whilst a beneficial interest was created in favour of Mr Wishart, it did not take priority to the claimant’s charge.

Background