On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.

On 3 June 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that a valid right of pledge can be established on goods that are delivered subject to retention of title (of ownership). If the buyer is declared bankrupt, the conditional ownership can become an unconditional ownership if the condition precedent is fulfilled (mostly full payment of the purchase price). Next to the buyer, the pledgee can also fulfil this condition. As a consequence, these goods are not part of the bankrupt estate, so that the pledgee can take recourse against these goods.

The facts

Op 3 juni 2016 heeft de Hoge Raad geoordeeld dat er een geldig pandrecht kan worden gevestigd op zaken die onder eigendomsvoorbehoud zijn geleverd aan de koper. Indien de koper failliet wordt verklaard, kan het voorwaardelijke eigendomsrecht uitgroeien tot een onvoorwaardelijk eigendomsrecht door vervulling van de voorwaarde jegens de verkoper (veelal volledige betaling van de koopsom). Ook de pandhouder kan deze voorwaarde vervullen. Het gevolg hiervan is dat genoemde zaken niet in de faillissementsboedel vallen, maar dat de pandhouder hier verhaal op kan nemen.

It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.

In two months' time the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 will come into force (with effect from 6 April 2017). This date has been long in the making the first draft of the new rules was published in September 2013.

The new rules are not intended to change the law. Their main aim is to consolidate provisions in order to reduce repetition, ensure that there is a more logical structure and modernise and simplify the language (including gender neutral drafting).

This briefing highlights a few of the key changes.

Het is pandhouders op grond van artikel 3:246 lid 1 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) toegestaan om een pandrecht op vorderingen uit te winnen door middel van het opeisen van de vordering. Deze bevoegdheid omvat tevens het recht om zekerheidsrechten uit te winnen die aan de verpande vordering zijn verbonden. Dit is bevestigd in een arrest van de Hoge Raad van 18 december 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Feiten

Pursuant to Article 3:246 paragraph 1 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) pledgees have the power to enforce their right of pledge on receivables by claiming (direct) payment of the receivable. This power also includes the right to enforce rights of pledge that in their turn have been granted as security for the repayment of the pledged receivable. The Supreme Court confirmed this in its judgement of 18 December 2015 (ABN AMRO / Marell).

Keeping children safe in education – revised statutory guidance

On 5 September 2016, the Department for Education’s revised guidance, ‘Keeping children safe in education’, came into force. The document is the Government’s statutory guidance which all schools, academies and colleges must have regard to when carrying out their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.

Dixon v Radley House Partnership (A Firm) [2016] EWHC 2511 (TCC)

The claimant (D) brought negligence proceedings against the defendant (R) a firm of architects, for refurbishment works.

In the draft claim form, D had referred to a loss of £35,894.00 allegedly caused by negligent misrepresentation on the part of R, who had been instructed on 27 October 2007.

The draft claim form and the fee were prepared up to a value of £50,000.00 and were received by the court on 25 October 2013, less than six years after the cause of action arose.