Another interesting case on schemes around the issue of insolvency. A judgment handed down yesterday by Snowden J in MAB Leasing Limited (a Malaysia Airlines leasing company) "parked" the issue of whether a Part 26 scheme (note, not a Part 26A plan) was an insolvency related event under the Cape Town Convention and Aircraft Protocol, as there was unanimous creditor consent. At the earlier convening hearing, Zacaroli J, without needing to decide the issue, stated that the company counsel's skeleton provided a "powerful case for concluding that the [Cape Town Convention] did not apply".

Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.

In 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re)[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal ("OCA") confirmed the right of a commercial landlord to draw on a letter of credit given as security pursuant to a lease, even when the draw takes place after the termination of the lease by the tenant's trustee in bankruptcy.

In the wake of the economic stress created by COVID-19, we have seen increased opportunities for buyers looking to acquire distressed companies and assets in Canada. Increased deal flow in industry sectors that have been hit hardest by COVID-19, including retail, hospitality, travel, cannabis, and oil and gas has occurred, and with the passage of time other sectors will be affected.

The Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations 2020 will apply to all business insolvencies that commence on or after 1 December 2020. They provide for certain debts owed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to become preferential debts in the event of a business entering a formal insolvency. It is important that creditors understand whether they are affected by these changes so that they can decide whether they need to take steps to protect their position.

The relevant debts

The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements—through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated—was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

The past year has seen some important judgments and hearings (with judgment awaited at the time of writing) on several subjects, some of which may shape the future of UK litigation for years to come. Litigants and litigators have also spent a good part of the year getting used to a new way of conducting litigation—remotely and fully electronically. Starting with contract law, while there has been little by way of Supreme Court guidance on the subject, the lower courts continue to issue interesting judgments.

Mergers & acquisitions (M&A)

Canada is an ideal location in which to establish and grow a business. One of the most common ways for foreign companies to expand to the Canadian market is through a merger with or acquisition of an existing Canadian business. There are a number of advantages to choosing Canada:

The economies of the United States (U.S.) and Canada are closely intertwined. As operations expand across the border, so too do the complexities associated with carrying on business - particularly the insolvency of a company spanning both jurisdictions. As such, understanding how to navigate the complexities of Canadian insolvency regimes is essential to successfully doing business in the country.

1. Legislation and court system

On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.