Antérieurement à sa faillite, la débitrice agissait à titre d’entreprise fournissant des services de « warehousing, receiving and shipping (pick and pack) ».
Après la faillite de l’entreprise survenue le 9 janvier 2014, l’un de ses anciens clients a réclamé du syndic la remise de ses inventaires.
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.
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 11 December 2014, Justice Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court delivered judgment approving the settlement of multiple class actions brought by investors in managed investment schemes operated by an entity of the agribusiness Great Southern Group in 2005 and 2006.
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.
The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down this week in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 offers welcome certainty to administrators, receivers and liquidators in relation to their obligations with respect to post-appointment tax liabilities.
Significance
In the decision of Re Arcabi Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2014] WASC 310 the court considered:
- the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) to goods being held on a bailment or consignment basis by a company in receivership and liquidation; and
- the receivers’ rights to be indemnified for costs and expenses related to investigating and protecting the property of third parties.
What is the significance?