On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].¹ In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.

As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank

In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.

Article 37 of the Act on Continuity of Enterprises states that "claims against the debtor related to services provided by its co-contractor during a judicial reorganization are to be qualified as privileged claims in a subsequent bankruptcy". Both the doctrine and case law are divided as to how this article should be interpreted, in particular whether or not only a direct co-contractor of the debtor can invoke the privileged nature of its claim. This discussion is particularly relevant with regard to claims for advance business tax, VAT claims and other tax debts. 

November 2015 Financial Services Bulletin The Supreme Court of Canada Confirmed Today the Paramountcy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act over License Denial Regimes The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released today its much awaited decision in 407 ETR,1 in which it upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and ruled that Section 22(4) of the Highway 407 Act is constitutionally inoperative to the extent that it is used to enforce a provable claim that has been discharged pursuant to section 178(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

On October 13, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the "Court of Appeal") upheld1 a CCAA judge's decision that the "interest stops rule" applies in CCAA proceedings, which significantly limits unsecured creditors' ability to recover interest accrued after the date of a debtor's insolvency.

Background

On 20 May 2015, the European Parliament adopted a new version (the "Revised Regulation") of Regulation 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the "Original Regulation").

According to the statement of the Council's reasons, the Revised Regulation is aimed at making cross-border insolvency proceedings more effective with a view to ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market and its resilience in economic crises.

En date du 20 mai 2015, le Parlement Européen a adopté une nouvelle mouture (le Règlement Révisé) du Règlement 1346/2000 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité (le Règlement Original).

Aux termes de l’exposé des motifs du Conseil, l’objectif du Règlement Révisé était de rendre les procédures d’insolvabilité transfrontières plus efficaces avec l’intention plus large d’assurer le bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur et sa résilience lors des crises économiques.

Principle

In order to secure the protection of judicial reorganization, the debtor needs to attach to the petition for judicial reorganization a certain number of documents provided for in article 17 § 2 of the Law on the continuity of enterprises (LCE). If these documents are not attached to the petition, the LCE provides that the petition shall be deemed inadmissible.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court clarified the test by which Ontario courts will recognize foreign bankruptcy proceedings.