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.

The proposed new regulations to safeguard the proprietary of pre-packs have caused alarm in the profession, one of the areas of concern being the requirement that the Evaluator central to the process requires no professional qualifications but thankfully are qualified if they think they are (yes, you did detect some sarcasm).

The Regulations will mean that an administrator cannot execute a pre-pack if the following applies:

Background

The Debtor was 82 years of age, and subject to a bankruptcy petition in the County Court in the sum of £62,000 which was heard on 19 December 2019.

PJSC Uralkali v Rowley & Anor [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) is about the sale of the Force India F1 racing team, owned and operated by Force India Formula One Team Limited (the “Company”).

The Force India F1 team was more successful on the track than it was financially and by the summer of 2018, the Company was in a precarious financial position. The Company went into administration and appointed joint administrators on 27 July 2018 (the “Joint Administrators”).

The issue in this case concerned the failure of a holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) to give notice to a prior QFC holder before appointing administrators, therefore potentially calling into question the validity of the administration.

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.

The facts of this case were somewhat unusual although it serves as a reminder of the principles involved in the trading of a business by a trustee in bankruptcy.

Background

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.