Effective November 1, 2019, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the CCAA) will, among other things, impose a requirement of good faith on all parties to proceedings (BIA and CCAA), impose an additional form of director liability (BIA), and limit the scope of relief on initial orders (CCAA).
In most trading relationships, suppliers enter into deferred payment agreements, such as instalment sales, with their retailers in order to allow retailers to stock their inventory and to manage cash flow between the delivery of goods and the resale to the customer. The possibility of default on payments or often the insolvency of a trade customer/retailer exposes the supplier to considerable risk without control of its goods and without payment. As an unsecured creditor, the supplier then stands in an unfortunate position and may never recover its goods or receive payment.
On August 30, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down its decision in Doyle Salewski Inc. v Scott 2019 ONSC 5108.
Although this lengthy decision covers many topics, one of interest relates to the "appropriate means" part of the discoverability analysis when a Trustee in Bankruptcy brings a claim for unjust enrichment.
Background
On July 31, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Ridel v. Goldberg, clarifying the interplay of the various provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 at play in circumstances where judgment creditors are allowed to take proceedings in their own name pursuant to an order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The Facts
Eine Betriebsprüfung beim Arbeitgeber kann dazu führen, dass Sozialversicherungsbeiträge nachgefordert werden. Die Folge kann eine drohende Insolvenz sein.
Die Restrukturierungs-Richtlinie ist in aller Munde. Wir zeigen, welche Auswirkungen sie auf das Arbeitsrecht hat.
Der vollständige Name lautet: Richtlinie (EU) 2019/1023 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 20. Juni 2019 über präventive Restrukturierungsrahmen, über Entschuldung und über Tätigkeitsverbote sowie über Maßnahmen zur Steigerung der Effizienz von Restrukturierungs-, Insolvenz- und Entschuldungsverfahren und zur Änderung der Richtlinie (EU) 2017/1132.
The EU Parliament adopted the Directive on future "Preventive Restructuring Frameworks", which creates the basis for uniform preventive restructuring across the European Union and will fundamentally change how companies deal with financial difficulties and restructuring.
Until now, the EU has suffered from a regulatory patchwork in this area with no regulations in some markets and sophisticated procedures in others. The new directive mitigates the dangers and risks posed by the former uneven regulatory landscape.
The EU Parliament adopted the Directive on future "Preventative Restructuring Frameworks.
This creates the basis for a uniform legal framework for preventive restructuring within Europe. To date there has been a "patchwork" of regulations in the EU: in some cases there are no regulations at all, in others there are sophisticated procedures in place. The new directive now counteracts the dangers and risks of such regulatory differences.
In the recent decision of Edmonton (City) v Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., 2019 ABCA 109, the Alberta Court of Appeal has concluded that fees and costs incurred by a court-appointed receiver should have priority over all claims by secured creditors, including special liens in favour of municipalities for unpaid property taxes. This is an important decision for the insolvency bar and provides some much needed comfort to receivers that their fees and costs will be protected by the court-ordered charge.
The Decision
The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.