A recent decision of Justice Rees of the Supreme Court of New South Wales confirms the importance of keeping proper financial books and records in the context of insolvency.

Commissioned shortly after the Monarch Airlines collapse in October 2017, the UK Government's Airline Insolvency Review has published its Final Report. This article looks at how the Report's recommendations – if implemented - would impact passenger protection if, in the future, airlines become insolvent and what these recommendations mean for airlines.

Vesting orders have become one of the most powerful tools in an insolvency professional’s toolkit, providing a purchaser with the comfort that the encumbrances contributing to the debtor’s financial difficulties cannot follow to the new owner. In light of their importance, Canadian insolvency and banking professionals were understandably anxious when the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA” or the “Court”) recently asked for submissions on whether receivership vesting orders can extinguish third party interests in land in the nature of a Gross Overriding Royalty (a “GOR”).1

In an April 30, 2019 endorsement accompanying a receivership order made in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada and D.M. Robichaud Associates Ltd. (“D.M. Robichaud”), Justice Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List (the “Court”) held that the receiver’s charge and the receiver’s borrowings charge should have priority over deemed trusts under provincial construction legislation.1

In late 2017 the UK Government spent £60 million of taxpayers' money repatriating over 110,000 Monarch Airlines passengers stranded overseas.

The Airline Insolvency Review was created to "consider both repatriation and refund protection to identify the market reforms necessary to ensure passengers are protected".

In January, we wrote about a decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which addressed the question of which appeal procedure must be followed in appeals of Orders made in proceedings constituted under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the

The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd.

A recent decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively answers the question of which appeal procedure must be followed in appeals of Orders made in proceedings constituted under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Courts of Justice Act (the “CJA”). Justice Watt’s decision in Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd.

On 1 October 2018, the Singapore Parliament passed the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill (the "Bill"), an omnibus legislation which will consolidate Singapore's personal insolvency, corporate insolvency and restructuring laws, which are currently under separate legislative regimes.

The overhaul follows recent amendments to the corporate insolvency and restructuring provisions of the Singapore Companies Act, and is part of a wider effort to boost the debt restructuring ecosystem in Singapore.

Key provisions introduced by the bill

Secured creditors can breathe a sigh of relief. We have received word that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the appeal from the bench in Canada v. Callidus Capital Corporation (“Callidus”).