The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

In August 2012 the NSW Government commissioned an Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency. The Inquiry was asked to assess the causes and extent of insolvency in the building and construction industry and to recommend measures to better protect subcontractors from the effects of insolvency.

On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.

On 19 September 2012, the Norton Rose Construction and Engineering team presented a breakfast briefing titled: “Financial Distress in Construction Projects: What happens when the wheels fall off?” 

This briefing identified the warnings signs of insolvency, what steps parties can take to minimise exposure, how best to respond to a party’s insolvency and the options available to prevent insolvency in the first place.

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background

A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

Gothard v Fell; in the matter of Allco Financial Group Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 328

On 15 May 2012, Jacobson J of the Federal Court of Australia allowed an application by Receivers to be released from confidentiality undertakings so that use could be made of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) examination transcripts.

Background

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the administration of the Hastie Group Limited (Hastie Group)¹ illustrates a number of important points for administrators, secured parties and purchasers under the new regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). If you would like to discuss the implications of this case with any of our PPSA or insolvency litigation experts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The facts