As we have recently highlighted and discussed in depth elsewhere in relation to the UKCS (click here), the confidence of North Sea oil & gas contractors is at an all-time low.

​​PENSION ADMINISTRATION

York (Police Services Board) v. York Regional Police Association, 2015 CanLII 62103 (ON LA)

In The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Amran Munir and others [2015], the directors and secretary of a company were sentenced by the High Court to a term of imprisonment for contempt of court.

Summary

Grant Forest Products Inc. v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2015 ONCA 570

In John David Hedger (the Liquidator of Pro4Sport Ltd) v David Adams [2015], the Liquidator of Pro4Sport Ltd (Pro4Sport) made an application to the Court under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986. The claim arose out of one transaction which took place shortly before the liquidation of Pro4Sport on 20 July 2012. On 25 June 2012 Mr Adams, on behalf of Pro4Sport, transferred all, or practically all, of the assets of Pro4Sport to an associated company, Pro4Sport.co.uk Ltd (Pro4Sport.co.uk) for a deferred consideration of £47,000 plus VAT.

In Ferreira da Silva e Brito and others v Estado portuges (C-160/14) the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) considered the meaning of a "transfer of a business" under the Acquired Rights Directive (the Directive) in relation to a situation whereby a majority shareholder assumed significant functions of a former subsidiary, which had been wound up.

Background

A number of headlines following a recent high-profile professional negligence case suggest that there is no duty on a purchaser’s conveyancer to check a seller’s solvency. It is, of course, part of the normal pre-contract searches and enquiries to check on the solvency of the seller, and in the majority of cases, the property solicitor will become aware of the seller’s bankruptcy, as a notice or restriction on the title will show up on the official search of the registered title.  

Solvent

Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), 2015 ONSC 2987

Au début de 2015, les sociétés 9171665 Canada Ltd. et Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (collectivement, « Connacher ») ont présenté à la Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») une demande d’ordonnance finale en vertu de l’article 192 de la Loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions (la « LCSA ») en vue de l’approbation d’un plan d’arrangement visant la restructuration de Connacher (l’« Arrangement »). Le 2 avril 2015, le juge C.M.

In early 2015, 9171665 Canada Ltd. and Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. (together Connacher) applied to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (Court) for a final order pursuant to section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for the approval of a plan of arrangement to restructure Connacher (Arrangement). On April 2, 2015, Justice C.M. Jones rejected Connacher's restructuring proposal for the reasons set out below.