On 16 March 2022, the Slovak Parliament approved the anticipated new act on solving threatened bankruptcy (the Act) and also amended related legislative documents. It implements the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring, whose implementation was postponed by one year to 17 July 2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act aims to reform insolvency in Slovakia and make preventive mechanisms effective enough to reduce the number of bankruptcies.

To whom does the Act apply?

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 21, 2022.

Areas of law covered in the cases this week included bankruptcy and insolvency (setting aside discharge from bankruptcy and after-acquired property), municipal liability for building inspections, two child protection decisions, guarantees and a partnership dispute.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 14, 2022.

Topics covered this week included property of a bankrupt (beneficial interest in trust property), testamentary capacity and extensions of time to perfect appeals.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Good evening.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 7, 2022.

In Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the court upheld the application judge’s decision to grant the orders the Bondfield monitor and trustee in bankruptcy requiring payments made at undervalue to be repaid.  In coming to its decision, the Court applied the corporate attribution doctrine.

Before the new bankruptcy law (Royal Decree 53/2019) (the “Bankruptcy Law”) came into effect in Oman, the laws and regulations regulating bankruptcies were limited and simply addressed in laws such as the commercial law (Royal Decree 55/1990 (as amended)) (the “Commercial Law”) and the commercial companies law (Royal Decree 18/2019) (the “Commercial Companies Law”). These laws provided the framework for the bankruptcy of a person and the liquidation of insolvent companies only.

Business rates liability is complex and the question of who is liable if occupiers become insolvent is one that often arises during periods of economic uncertainty, such as the pandemic.

Business rates liability for insolvent companies

Business rates liability attaches to specific units of property known as “hereditaments”.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of December 27, 2021. There were only two substantive civil decisions released this week.

Insolvency related claims in relation to contracts subject to arbitration agreements continue to result in interesting challenges for the English court. In a recent decision the court had to decide whether an application for a summary judgment amounted to a step in the proceedings such that the applicant had waived its right to seek a stay in favour of arbitration.

Background

A recent Court of Appeal decision has criticised obiter comments made by the Supreme Court in Bresco v Lonsdale to the effect that adjudication decisions in favour of companies in liquidation could in certain circumstances, and with appropriate safeguards, be enforced by way of summary judgment. The Court of Appeal has indicated that such an approach would be at odds with the mandatory right of set-off arising under the Insolvency Rules. The Court of Appeal’s comments in this respect are themselves obiter and will give rise to uncertainty in this area of the law.

The High Court has set out the principles that apply to the construction of questions in an insurer’s automated online underwriting system and the circumstances in which an insurer’s questions may lead to waiver of the right to be told about certain information. In this case, the Court considered the construction and scope of the insurer’s standard question concerning previous insolvencies, and held that the wording used waived the insurer’s right to be told about other insolvency events not caught by the question.

Background