In the matter of Chandos Construction Ltd v Restructuring Deloitte Inc, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a judgment on the anti-deprivation rule, which is intended to prevent contracts from frustrating statutory and common law rules relating to insolvency. The Court established that a clause triggered by an event of insolvency or bankruptcy and which has the effect of removing value from the insolvent’s estate is void and unenforceable.

On 14 May 2021, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) signed the Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Record of Meeting”).

Dans l'affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies du détaillant nord-américain Groupe Dynamite, le Juge Kalichman, siégeant alors à la Cour supérieure du Québec, rend un jugement sur le traitement des taxes de vente pré-dépôt devant être remises par les débiteurs. La Cour exerce son pouvoir discrétionnaire afin de modifier l’ordonnance pour préciser que seules les taxes de vente accumulées ou perçues après la date de l’ordonnance initiale doivent être payées immédiatement aux autorités fiscales.

The recent decision of Justice B.E.

In a case with wide-reaching implications for the private equity industry, the U.S. Supreme Court ended a decade-long effort by distressed debt investors to undermine the safe harbor from avoidance actions set forth in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in the In re Tribune Company Fraudulent Conveyance Litigation (“Tribune”), preserving the safe harbor defense for LBOs established by the influential Second Circuit.

In June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the “CIGA”) introduced a new procedure to the restructuring toolkit in England & Wales, the Part 26A restructuring plan (the “Plan”, see further detail on CIGA in our article here). The Plan is similar to the well-tested English law scheme of arrangement (the “Scheme”), and the English courts have so far relied on the wealth of Scheme case law to guide them in deciding whether to sanction a Plan.

In times of crisis such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, businesses are required to make important decisions with very significant implications at an accelerated pace and in the face of the unknown. This was the case when governments across the globe ordered borders to shut and non-essential activities to scale down or stop almost a year ago. This remains true as governments have announced and begun implementing plans to restart the economy and financial pressures are mounting rapidly on businesses to resume operations while facing an uncertain economy.

The highest profile duty to consult case this past year was the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Coldwater First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 34, relating to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (TMX Project). This was a judicial review of the federal Cabinet’s decision to approve the TMX Project for the second time subject to numerous conditions. The TMX Project involves the twinning and expansion of an existing pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta to Burnaby, British Columbia.

I had an interesting conversation this week with the Evening Standard, considering the prospect of further company voluntary arrangements, or 'CVAs' on the UK high street as the year progresses.

The vast majority of ‘bricks and mortar’ retailers, as well as hospitality venues, are desperately seeking ways to cut their fixed costs to improve their chances of riding-out the pandemic. Leasehold obligations are often among the most significant of those fixed costs, and the CVA offers a well-tested route to compromise those obligations.

Prior to December 23, 2020, it had been unclear whether a court had the jurisdiction to grant an order assigning a contract without counterparty consent, on application by a court-appointed receiver (a “Receiver”).