In Galantis v Alexious, [2019] UKPC 15 the Privy Council concluded that the oppression remedy existing under the Bahamian Companies Act cannot be invoked after the dissolution of a company, with respect to oppressive conduct by directors that occurred before the dissolution of the company.
In a consultation issued by the UK tax authority, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), on 26 February 2019, a change in the order of asset distribution in the insolvency of UK companies has been proposed. The amendments would newly favour certain taxes collected and held by an insolvent entity ahead of certain secured and unsecured creditors and would come into force in April 2020.
PLAN SPONSOR ENTITLED TO VOTE AS CREDITOR AND CREDITOR APPROVAL REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT LITIGATION FUNDING AGREEMENT.
On February 1, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its highly anticipated decision in the Orphan Well Association, et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited, et al, 2019 SCC 5 (Redwater).
In a recent opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that a seller licensed under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”) could not entirely setoff payables owed to a bankrupt PACA merchant against receivables owed by the debtor. The ruling is a reminder to PACA-regulated parties that otherwise common operational practices such as setoffs may not be recognized and enforceable in bankruptcy or in PACA-regulated transactions.
While 2018 saw a slight decrease in nationwide CCAA filings (with 19 total cases commenced, compared to 23 in 2017), there were a number of important decisions rendered throughout the country. The highlights are summarized below:
Supreme Court of Canada clarifies Crown priority for GST claims
Introduction
In a 2017 judgment discussed here, the Federal Court of Appeal permitted the CRA to assert a claim against a secured creditor who had received a repayment from its borrower prior to bankruptcy when the borrower also owed unremitted GST obligations to the Crown.
A U.S. Bankruptcy Court (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently enjoined a Hong Kong-based investor from exercising its shareholder purchase rights in an Asian joint venture.[1] The Bankruptcy Court’s order also prevents the investor from proceeding with litigation to enforce its rights in a Hong Kong court. Neither of the joint venture partners, or the joint venture itself, are debtors in a domestic or foreign insolvency proceeding. Nevertheless, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that injunctive relief was warranted because the investor’s actions were disrupting a sale process for the U.S.