On May 18, 2016, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta released its much anticipated decision in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278, which addressed the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), the Pipeline Act and the 

The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

On April 20, 2016, the Canadian federal government introduced Bill C-15, which is legislation that provides for, among other things, a bank recapitalization or “bail-in” regime for domestic systemically important banks (“D-SIBs”).

BAIL-IN

Section 440D imposes a stay on “proceedings in a court” against a company whilst it is in administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act. It is well established that the term “proceedings in a court” does not include an arbitration proceeding: see Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 1305 at [42] (Hammerschlag J). Notwithstanding this, can the Court use its general power to make orders under s447A to extend the reach of s440D in order to impose a stay on an arbitration against a company in administration?

The treatment of shareholder and other equity-related claims in the context of insolvency and reorganization proceedings in Canada was initially judge-determined and the case law generally accepted the premise that shareholders were not entitled to share in the assets of an insolvent corporation until after all the ordinary creditors have been paid in full.  In 2009 further clarity was brought to the issue by introduction of the “

There are a number of similarities between restructuring legislation in Canada and the United States.  Each of Canada and the United States have adopted a form of the UNCITRAL Model Law Cross-Border Insolvency in order to facilitate cooperation and efficient administration of cases with an international component.  In Canada this has occurred through implementation of both Part XIII of the 

Individuals who serve as directors or offices of public companies in Canada face an increasing amount of shareholder litigation and a complex web of legal and regulatory provisions that must be  managed, navigated and adhered to.  The challenge to directors only increases when the company is insolvent, on the eve of insolvency or otherwise in some form of financial distress.  If the insolvency is driven by a liquidity crisis the company may be hard-pressed to maintain day-to-day operations and preserve going concern value for stakeholder groups.  Alternatively, if the pr

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Canadian Appeals Monitor

Since our last post, the Supreme Court has released a significant trilogy of judgments involving issues of federal paramountcy and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).

The recent Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decision of Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 has considered the application of 'proportionality' in determining receivers' remuneration.

Update on McCabes' article " 'Are we there yet' - When are proceedings over for the purposes of enforcement"

The High Court of Australia has refused an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Sarks v Cassegrain [2015] FCAFC 38, confirming that a judgment issued by the Court on the basis of filing of a certificate of costs assessment is a "final judgment" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) and can therefore ground a bankruptcy notice.