In The Toronto-Dominion Bank v Queen (2020 FCA 80), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) confirmed a Federal Court (FC) decision and ruled that a secured creditor had a statutory obligation to pay the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for a tax debt of an arm’s-length borrower because the secured creditor had received proceeds from the sale of the borrower’s property which was deemed to be held in trust by the Crown under the Excise
Times are changing rapidly with the current flow of Coronavirus measures introduced to support businesses in debt and distress.
We take a look at what creditors can (and can’t) do to help better protect their position.
I’m owed money. What can I do?
Certain recent government measures may impede your ability to take recovery or enforcement action at the present time. The good news is that many avenues remain available.
You cannot (in some cases):
The Supreme Court of Canada delivered its reasons today in 9354-9186 Québec inc. v Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10, after having unanimously allowed the appeals from the bench on January 9, 2020. Davies represented the principal – and successful – appellants in this matter.1
In its reasons, which were delivered by Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Moldaver, the Supreme Court laid out key principles for the conduct of insolvency proceedings (including proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act [CCAA]):
Traduction en cours.
In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.
The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.
In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v Callidus Capital Corporation unanimously overturned a unanimous decision of the Québec Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision, released on January 23, 2020, was issued from the bench with reasons to follow.
Dans une décision unanime rendue séance tenante le 23 janvier 2020 dans l’affaire 9354-9186 Québec Inc. c. Callidus Capital Corporation, la Cour suprême du Canada a infirmé une décision unanime de la Cour d’appel du Québec. Les motifs de la Cour sont à venir.
In Carrello,[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.