ACT 42/2015 AMENDS ARTICLE 1964 OF THE CIVIL CODE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON ACTIONS)
On October 13, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) dismissed the so-called “interest stops rule” appeal in the Nortel matter,[1] thereby confirming that the rule applies in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). The Court’s decision also appears to eliminate any suggestion that the rule only applies to so-called “liquidating” CCAA proceedings.
DOING BUSINESS IN PORTUGAL A legal and tax perspective This guide provides general information to investors intending to operate in Portugal on legal issues on which they may need advice. It is not intended, and cannot be considered, as a comprehensive and detailed analysis of Portuguese law or, under any circumstances, as legal advice from Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira. This guide was drafted on the basis of information available as of October, 2015. Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira is under no obligation and assumes no responsibility to update this information. All rights reserved.
Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon of 02-06-2015
Interpretation of the intentions of a commercial company – Attribution of communications by members of corporate bodies – Signatures
In 2009, to promote corporate restructuring, the MoF and the SAT jointly released Circular Caishui [2009] No. 59 to grant tax deferral treatment to qualified corporate restructuring transactions (recently modified by Circular 109, mentioned above, which expanded its scope).
In 2010, the SAT released Announcement [2010] No. 4, providing procedural guidelines to benefit from the tax deferral treatment.
On May 1, 2015, the Alberta Court of Appeal rendered its decision in 1773907 Alberta Ltd. v. Davidson, 2015 ABCA 150, and allowed an appeal permitting an action, brought in the name of an insolvent company, to proceed, notwithstanding that the company had assigned this claim to a third party. As will be discussed, the assignment of an action to a third party is often found to be caught by the doctrines of champerty and maintenance, and the decision by the Court serves to identify where such an assignment will be permitted.
NEW REFORM OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 AMENDMENTS REGARDING REFINANCING AGREEMENTS 3 - NOTIFICATION OF THE START OF NEGOTIATIONS 3 - REFINANCING AGREEMENTS AND COURT APPROVAL 4 AMENDMENTS REGARDING COMPOSITION AGREEMENTS 4 - CONTENT OF THE COMPOSITION AGREEMENT 4 - QUORUM FOR THE CREATION OF THE CREDITORS’ MEETING AND CALCULATION OF MAJORITIES 5 AMENDMENTS REGARDING LIQUIDATION 5 AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS 6 TELEMATIC COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC INSOLVENCY REGISTRY 7 LEGAL UPDATE I COMMERCIAL AND LITIGATION PRACTICE AREAS June 2015
财政部国家税务总局关于个人非货币性资产投资有关个人所得税政策的通知)
On March 30, 2015, the Ministry of Finance (“MoF”) and the SAT jointly released Caishui [2015] No. 41 (“Circular 41”) to expand nationwide the tax payment installment policy applicable in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone to income derived from non-monetary asset investment made by individuals.
Circular 41 defines non-monetary asset investment and includes the contribution of non-monetary assets to establish a new company, to participate in company capital increase, private placement of stock, stock exchange and corporate restructuring.
(财政部、国家税务总局关于进一步支持企业事业单位改制重组有关契税政策的通知)
Following the State Council’s call to introduce policies promoting corporate restructuring in Guofa [2014] No. 14, MoF and SAT released Caishui [2015] No. 37 (“Circular 37”) to exempt from deed tax the transfer of land use rights and building ownership rights in the following corporate transactions:
On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons1 to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.