The current difficult economy is causing continual financial problems for many businesses. Directors are warned that entering into written agreements to make payments when they know their company is unable to meet its debts may equate to deceit under the terms of the Statute of Frauds (Amendment) Act 1828.

This could result in personal liability for the director who has made an implied representation about his company’s ability to pay.

Case law

Events of Default are most often found in the context of loan agreements and are similar to termination rights that may be found in commercial agreements, albeit with potentially different consequences. An Event of Default is an event or circumstance relating to a borrower or its activities which will give rise to a right for a lender to refuse to make any further advances, demand immediate repayment of a loan, make a term loan repayable on demand and/or enforce its security.

Whether an insured had misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to an insurer that its professional services encompassed directors and officers services.

In Issue

• Non-Disclosure and misrepresentations by insureds
• Consideration of sections 21 and 26 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth)

The Background

The Ontario Court of Appeal in Meridian Credit Union Limited v Baig¹ made it clear that misinforming a receiver during the purchase of a property, even by omission, will not be tolerated. Purchasers in the context of a receivership have an obligation to ensure that the receiver is aware of all of the facts. The court also took the opportunity to remind corporate directors that they will be held personally responsible for their tortious conduct, even if that conduct was directed in a bona fide manner to the best interests of the company.

Upon receiving notice of a debtor’s bankruptcy case, the prudent debt collector typically files a proof of claim, in the hope of receiving some distribution from the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Absent a fraudulent claim by the debt collector, the Bankruptcy Code specifically provides for the filing of claims against the debtor’s estate. So how could a debt collector be sued for doing what the Code allows? It could happen if debts a collector actually holds are barred from enforcement under a state statute of limitations.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 2, 2016)

“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.”

– Albert Einstein

Until the recent U. S. Supreme Court’s decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 1581, 194 L.Ed.2d 655, 84 U.S. L.W. 4270 (2016), there was disagreement in the circuit courts regarding whether a debtor in bankruptcy could be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where the evidence of wrongdoing proved the debtor committed actual fraud, but there was no evidence that the debtor made a misrepresentation to the creditor seeking to bar the discharge.

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”) finally comes into force on 1 August 2016.

The 2010 Act makes it easier for a third party to bring a claim against an insurer when the insured party has become insolvent. The 2010 Act will replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”) and is designed to extend and improve the rights of third party claimants.

HIGHLIGHTS: