On November 1, 2019, reforms to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that were announced in Canada’s federal 2019 budget will come into force. Key changes to the insolvency regime include:
It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?
Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.
The Court of Appeal (CA) recently dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand arising out of the failure to pay margin calls in But Ka Chon v. Interactive Brokers LLC (02/08/2019, CACV 611/2018) [2019] HKCA 873, despite the presence of a mandatory arbitration clause. Obiter comments of the CA put into question the recent case law in Re Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd [2018] 2 HKLRD 449 (the “Lasmos case“) that a petition should “generally be dismissed” in the face of a mandatory arbitration clause.
Some key points
The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).
On 15 July 2019, UNCITRAL formally approved a new model law (linked here) for enterprise group insolvencies on how to administer group insolvencies across multiple jurisdictions. A lesson learnt from the 2008 global financial crisis when we saw the collapse of Lehman Brothers was the absence of legislation that dealt with group insolvencies. This has been identified as a major gap in UNCITRAL’s model law on cross-border insolvency (MLCBI).
On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.
Yeni Gelişmeler
Gelir Vergisi Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun ("Torba Kanun") 19 Temmuz 2019 tarih ve 30836 sayılı Resmi Gazete'de yayımlanarak yürürlüğe girdi. Torba Kanun finansal yeniden yapılandırmaya ve gelir vergisine ilişkin düzenlemeler içeriyor.
Torba Kanun ne getiriyor?
Finansal Yeniden Yapılandırma
Recent Developments
The Law on the Amendment to the Income Tax Law and Certain Laws (the "Omnibus Bill") entered into force upon its publication on the Official Gazette No. 30836 dated July 19, 2019. The Omnibus Bill includes provisions for financial restructuring and tax related matters.
What’s New?
Financial Restructuring
2018 yazındaki kur şokuyla, "finansal yapılandırma" kavramı hayatımıza girdi.Borçlu şirketin mali yapısının elden geçirilip, mali stratejisinin tekrar belirlenmesi olarak tanımlanabilecek finansal yapılandırma; bir anda finansal kuruluşlarımızın en büyük gündemi haline geldi. İlgili kurumlarımız hemen müdahale edip, yapılandırma için yasal altyapıyı oluşturma yönünde çalışmaya başladı.