Before embarking on any litigation, or continuing any litigation that is on foot at the time of the liquidator's appointment, a liquidator should carefully weigh up the benefits and risks of pursuing a particular course of action.

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. We discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. We provide guidance on ways to mitigate this risk.

Balancing risk – weighing up competing priorities

The recent decision of Justice B.E.

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.

Externally-administered companies will have 24 months to comply with financial reporting and AGM obligations, if ASIC's proposal goes ahead.

ASIC relief defers obligations to lodge financial reports and hold annual general meetings for companies in external administration by 6 months. Companies in liquidation (other than AFS licensees) do not have to comply with financial reporting or AGM obligations at all.

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”).

In a year quite unlike any other, the landscape of Canadian restructuring law saw significant developments in 2020. The COVID-19 crisis put novel issues before the courts, challenged businesses in unforeseen ways and saw various supports and concessions offered to struggling businesses from governments and creditors. Ultimately, while the supports and concessions enabled many businesses to avoid insolvency proceedings in 2020, many others sought the protection of an insolvency filing, with industries such as the retail industry particularly impacted.

Companies post-restructuring are not subject to the rules protecting creditors of insolvent companies in section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re), 2020 ONCA 681 (“7636156”), recently affirmed the autonomy of documentary letters of credit as valid security for the obligations of a tenant under a commercial lease when that lease is disclaimed by the tenant or the tenant’s trustee in bankruptcy.

There remain a number of issues in the proposed insolvency reforms that need careful deliberation, particularly where the Regulations have yet to be released for consideration.