A Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is essentially the equivalent of a PIA for a corporation. However, a company must be in administration for a DOCA to be proposed.
A Personal Insolvency Agreement, otherwise known as a PIA, is a flexible arrangement between debtors and their creditors. It involves a debtor putting forward a proposal as to how their financial affairs should be administered with a view to ensuring that creditors receive a dividend in respect of their debts.
A PIA will only come into operation if it has been accepted by a special resolution at a meeting of creditors – meaning a majority in numbers and at least 75% in value must vote in favour of the PIA.
The Status of Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act Deemed Trust Claims in Insolvency1
Partner, Michael Lhuede and Senior Associate, Ben Hartley discuss the recent Federal Court decision of AMWU v Beynon that dealt with directors’ personal liability for the payment of employee entitlements.
Introduction
Insolvency practitioners need to be aware of the potential for incurring personal liability under civil penalty provisions for contraventions of the Fair Work Act and how they can protect themselves from claims when accepting appointments.
In the 2012 decision of SWP Industries Inc., Re, Justice McLellan of the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (the “Court”) declined to lift the stay of proceedings one week in advance of its expiry, despite the assertion of material prejudice advanced by Bank of Nova Scotia (“BNS”).
The recent Australian Federal Court decision of Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea) in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680 has the effect of allowing the arrest of a ship in Australia, despite the operation of the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) which incorporates the United Nations Model Law on cross border insolvency into Australian law.
It has long been standard practice for Court-appointed receivers, monitors and trustees in bankruptcy to include comprehensive disclaimer language in the reports they submit to Court in connection with insolvency proceedings. The reason is simple – these reports are relied on by the Court and other parties to the proceedings, and are often prepared using unaudited and unverified information obtained from management of the debtor company.
On April 2, 2013, Justice Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an application brought by Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) for the appointment of a receiver over the assets, undertakings and properties of Pine Tree Resort Inc. and 1212360 Ontario Limited, operating as the Delawana Inn in Honey Harbour, Ontario (together, “Delawana”).
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). 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 relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.
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.