As highlighted by the 2008-2009 crisis, the insolvency of sub-suppliers raises important challenges. Automotive parts suppliers may need to find an alternative sub-supplier at short notice or may have to take over the production of certain parts themselves, which often requires a recovery of the tools that were provided to the sub-supplier. Both scenarios raise difficult legal issues.

In a recent landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court deliberated on the question of whether an overseas defendant had to have submitted to the jurisdiction under common law before a foreign bankruptcy order would be recognised and enforced in England. Richard Keady and Jay Qin of Bird & Bird consider the practical implications of the decision and the significance it may have on practitioners going forward.

In Re Sino-Forest Corporation¹, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation of “equity claims” employed by Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List).

Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),¹  courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements.  While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility.  The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP

In the Kitchener Frame Ltd¹ decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) confirmed that third-party releases in proposals made under the BIA² are permitted. In doing so, the Court relied on the principle that the BIA and CCAA³ ought to be read and interpreted, harmoniously. Finally, the Court sanctioned a consolidated proposal on the basis it met the requirements set out in section 59(2) of the BIA.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) has confirmed that historical environmental remediation obligations will not automatically take priority over the claims of other creditors in an insolvency, even where those obligations are framed in the form of regulatory orders.

On August 18, 2011, Mr. Justice Morawetz, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, released an important decision in regard to preference actions in the matter of Tucker v. Aero Inventory (UK) Limited (together with Aero Inventory plc, Aero).

Background

In 2008, the catastrophic effect of the credit crunch spread to most world economies. As in previous recessions, insolvency has affected increasing numbers of individuals and companies, and parties to agreements to arbitrate are increasingly likely to find themselves dealing with insolvent companies. What are the issues to bear in mind?

1/ Prior insolvency

The Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality and Financial Collateral Arrangements) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 came into force on 6 April 2011.

Shareholder claims and corporate bankruptcies are on the rise.