The StaRUG provides for a so-called stabilisation order to make it easier for companies to restructure. This is also referred to as a moratorium. We explain the requirements and consequences.
On 1 January 2021, the StaRUG, which goes back to an EU directive, came into force and wants to provide a `second chance for businesses. The abbreviation stands for 'Unternehmensstabilisierungs- und –restrukturierungsgesetz' ('Corporate Stabilisation and Restructuring Act').
With this overview, we want to provide you with a high-level overview of the StaRUG on the following main issues:
In what can only be described as a bitter pill to swallow for the professionals involved, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in Duca Financial Services Credit Union Ltd. v.
On July 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) released its decision in Hutchingame Growth Capital Corporation v.
On July 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) released its decision in Hutchingame Growth Capital Corporation v.
On March 26, 2020, leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Alberta CA”) in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc.1 (“Canada North Group”) was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”).2 No reasons were given.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread closures and suspension of operations, including within the justice system in Ontario. Ontario courts have issued a number of notices detailing the changes to regular court operations. In an effort to simplify the complicated situation already facing insolvency practitioners and their clients, we have summarized the current status of court operations germane to bankruptcy and insolvency matters.
Superior Court of Justice
On March 6, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Bodanis (“Bodanis”),1 holding that two debtors, each having an estate exceeding $10,000 in value, had appeals of their bankruptcy orders as of right under section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act2(the “BIA”) and thus did not need to seek leave to appeal.
Section 193 reads as follows:
On December 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (the “NLSC”) released its decision in Re Norcon Marine Services Ltd.1 (“Norcon Marine”), dismissing both an application by a debtor for continuance of its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act2 (“BIA”) proposal proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act3 (“CCAA”) and a competing application by a secured creditor for the appointment of a receiver.
On October 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “BCSC” or the “Court”) released its decision in 8640025 Canada Inc. (Re)1 (“8640025 Canada”), denying an application to replace the monitor (the “Monitor”) in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the "CCAA") proceeding because the applicant was not a creditor and therefore had no standing to bring such an application.