Cette importante décision prononcée dernièrement par la Cour suprême du Canada confirme : (i) que le juge chargé d’appliquer la LACC possède un vaste pouvoir discrétionnaire et la compétence nécessaire pour empêcher un créancier de voter sur un plan d’arrangement s’il agit dans un but illégitime, (ii) que le financement de litiges n’est pas intrinsèquement illégal et qu’un accord de financement de litige peut être approuvé par la Cour à titre de financement temporaire en situation d’insolvabilité.
This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.
Introduction
Introduction
It has been more than a month since the announcement of the lock-down in India by the Central Government, and longer in many other parts of the world.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, consolidation transactions are likely to increase in India and globally as many businesses may not have the financial wherewithal to survive the crisis and will look to sell out. At the same time, there will be buyers (“Buyer”) who may have enough cash to be deployed in taking over distressed businesses. This article discusses some of the issues which the Buyer should keep in mind while buying distressed assets.
In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) has suspended regular operations at all of its locations from March 19th, 2020 to May 29th, 2020 (the “Suspension Period”).[1] In an effort to balance the seriousness of the situation with the principles of open courts and timely access to justice, the Court continues to hear certain “urgen
The Government of India (GOI) announced a nationwide lock down on account of Covid-19 pandemic with effect from 25 March 2020. This has severely disrupted regular business activities across all sectors of the economy in the country. The quarterly newsletter issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) for the quarter October – December 2019, states that as on 31 December 2019, there are approximately 1,961 entities which were undergoing a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (Rajasthan HC) delivered its judgment in the matter of Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd v Union of India through the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Ors D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council during its 39th meeting, held on 14 March 2020, decided that a special procedure should be prescribed for corporate debtors undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), in order to enable such entities to comply with the provisions of the GST laws.