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.

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”).

2020 was a crippling year for the aviation industry. With daily cash burn running into the tens of millions of dollars for many airlines, access to liquidity has been critical as treasury teams and fleet managers juggle expenses with decimated revenue. Many governments pledged state aid but what has been delivered to date has simply not been enough.

The ‘Golden Goose’

In the recent judgment of the ECSC in the matter of Sumner Group Mining Limited v Zica S.A (BVIHC (Com) 2020/0171, Walkers successfully represented the respondent in defending an application to set aside a statutory demand. Jack J provided helpful guidance on the legal principles in circumstances where it is alleged that a statutory demand had been served improperly for a collateral purpose.

The applicant sought to set aside a statutory demand on the basis of either:

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.

The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the "Court") recently handed down a decision in the case of BDO Cayman Ltd. and BDO Trinity Ltd. v Ardent Harmony Fund Inc. (In Official Liquidation). This case provides helpful guidance on the exercise of the Court's discretion to grant leave to commence proceedings against a company in liquidation.

Background

Practical Effects Of Significant Reforms To Guernsey’s Insolvency Law With reference to practical examples from England & Wales, this briefing note seeks to highlight three areas of change that will be of particular interest to Insolvency Practitioners, directors involved with Guernsey companies and their professional advisors once the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the “Ordinance”) comes into force. Enhanced Investigatory Powers The Ordinance extends insolvency professionals’ powers in four important respects.

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.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Grand Court”) in the matter of Sun Cheong Creative Development Holdings Limited (FSD 160 of 2020), the Chief Justice considered the principles applicable to the appointment of “soft touch” provisional liquidators to effect the restructuring of a Hong Kong-listed Cayman Islands company where two competing winding up petitions were filed before the High Court of Hong Kong (the ("HK Petitions" and the “HK Court” respectively).

On 29 September 2020, Chief Justice Smellie QC handed down his judgment in the Matter of Premier Assurance Group SPC Ltd (in Controllership) (FSD Cause No. 210 of 2020) confirming the powers of the controllers appointed under section 24(2)(h) of the Insurance Law, 2010 (the "Insurance Law") so as to enable them to exercise their powers as against the "world at large". In doing so, the Chief Justice held that the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to supplement section 24 of the Insurance Law to "fill the practical gap" left by that provision.

Background