The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) in 306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd.1 serves as a cautionary reminder to secured creditors that their position may not always be at the top of the insolvency food chain, even when they have taken all the proper steps to perfect their security interests.
This article provides snapshot of some of the more incidental goings-on of which we believe practitioners should be aware. Amongst other things, it covers developments in the reform of the EC Regulation, the consultation on the new-look SIP 16, and the Comet decision on the extent of the court’s S.236 powers.
EU Council adopts agreement on EC Insolvency Regulation reforms
First in the lineup, the Council of the EU agreed a compromise agreement with the EU Parliament on the proposed amendments to the EC Insolvency Regulation (Reg EC 1346/2000).
The PPF’s final levy rules for 2015/16 published at the end of last year largely confirmed the consultation drafts but included changes in some details.
We recap on what was known before the final rules came out. Then we look at the changes in the final rules.
Changes already confirmed
Insolvency scoring
Preamble
The background
On December 1, 2014, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court of Appeal”) released its decision, written for the Court of Appeal by Madam Justice Pepall, in Bank of Nova Scotia v. Diemer, 2014 ONCA 851 (“Diemer”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the court-appointed receiver’s (the “Receiver”) appeal of the order of Justice Goodman, which, among other things, reduced the fees of counsel (“Counsel”) to the Receiver.
Paragraph 71 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act allows an administrator to apply to court to sell assets subject to a fixed charge as if they were not subject to the security. The case of O’Connell v Rollings and others [2014] EWCA Civ 639 is a rare illustration of such an application and provides useful guidance on the factors the court will take into account.
The background
We have become used to a regular stream of decisions in which the courts are prepared to grant administration or winding up orders in respect of overseas companies which have COMI or an establishment in the UK. The decision inRe Buccament Bay Limited and another [2014] EWCH 3130 is a rare exception in which the court has refused to exercise its discretion.
The background
The PPF is going ahead with the new insolvency scoring system developed by Experian.
It is also raising its requirements for contingent asset guarantees.
Partnerships which are breaking up face a series of urgent problems – particularly where the business itself is becoming insolvent. These difficulties can be amplified by failing relationships between the partners (who have to work together to wind up the business) and the potential need to realise assets rapidly to stave off the appointment of liquidators.
Heads of Terms’ or ‘Memoranda of Agreement’ (“MoA”) are commonly agreed by parties as a precursor to entering into more substantial agreements.
MoA are often intended by the parties to be broad statement of commercial intent to enter into a contract, rather than having contractual force themselves. Accordingly, MoA are often drafted with a more relaxed attitude towards their contents
However, no matter what the parties may have intended, a MoA can easily amount to a contract depending on its drafting, exposing the parties to unintended liabilities.