A recent Alberta case continues the development of a line of cases at the intersection of environmental protection and bankruptcy and insolvency law in Canada.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court examines whether a 'hopelessly insolvent' subcontractor that executes a holding DOCA to enforce payment claims served on head contractor under the NSW security of payment legislation.

Key takeouts

This week's issue has a strong ESG focus. We cover the Senate Committee's report into the government's Bill to overhaul the existing 'safeguard' mechanism, the outcomes of the ACCC's greenwashing sweep and the ACCC's enforcement priorities for 2023/24. On the financial services front we provide an update on the status of the proposed FAR (which would expand on and replace the existing BEAR). We also provide an update on the progress of measures to further 'modernise' Corporations Act requirements and more…

Liquidators and creditors should be aware of the High Court's analysis of the limits of set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

In the recent decision of Chin v Beauty Express Canada Inc. (“Chin”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered the impact of an employee’s service with a prior employer on the employee’s entitlement to reasonable notice of termination.

What steps should directors take when dealing with challenges to their company's solvency? We provide a high-level guide to the legal framework, looking at directors' general duties in an insolvency context and how the safe harbour defence to insolvent trading applies.

What suggests a company may be financially distressed? What are directors' legal obligations? At what point should they seek advice?

Our guide explains the law, to help directors understand what they need to do.

Directors' general duties in an insolvency context

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal invalidated an arbitration and forum selection clause in a commercial agreement in favour of having a dispute between the debtor and its former customer adjudicated within a receivership proceeding.

Reverse vesting orders (or “RVOs”) have become an increasingly popular and useful tool for maximizing recovery in complex insolvencies in Canada, particularly in circumstances where traditional alternatives of asset sales or restructuring plans are not effective or practical. RVOs are very attractive to purchasers of distressed businesses because they can efficiently preserve the value of permits, tax losses and other assets which cannot be easily transferred to a purchaser through an asset transaction.

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada v.Canada North Group Inc.[1] provided much needed clarity regarding the order of priority for unremitted source deductions in restructuring proceedings.