Public consultations on enhancing retirement security led by the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada closed in late 2018. Given the importance and complexity of the subject matter, the one-month consultation period offered by the government was curiously short. Given that 2019 is an election year, the quick completion of the process could suggest that the federal government anticipated the direction in which it would proceed with any legislation.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Orphan Well Association, Alberta Energy Regulator v. Grant Thornton Limited and ATB Financial.[1] This important decision may have profound implications, potentially limiting the ability of oil and gas producers to secure credit and impairing the effectiveness of the insolvency system where debtors have significant regulatory obligations.

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

In Callidus Capital Corporation v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1] the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a troubling 2017 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bankruptcy of a debtor extinguishes the deemed trust for unremitted GST and HST created in favour of the Crown (“CRA”) by section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”).

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

38144 Ronald Baldovi v. Her Majesty the Queen 

(Man.)

Courts – Judges – Reasonable apprehension of bias

2018 was the "year of the CVA", slashing rents and forcing landlords to get to grips with long-winded CVA proposal documents in an attempt to allow struggling tenants to manage their debts, turn around their businesses and avoid terminal insolvency situations.

The unfortunate reality is that even if they are approved by landlords and other creditors, not all these CVAs will be successful and many tenants are likely to end up in administration.

Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.