This past year has featured a diverse range of consequential, precedent-setting insolvency disputes across various industries, reflecting both the breadth of challenges facing Canadian businesses and the adaptability of Canada’s insolvency framework in resolving these issues. The most consequential decisions in which we have been involved are described below, alongside key takeaways for stakeholders participating in insolvency proceedings in 2026 and beyond.
In its decision in In re Brandt, the court seems to draw a clear line: No post-petition add-ons for attorneys’ fees and costs when a secured claim arises from a judgment lien.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases involving bankruptcy questions:
Before the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Purdue Pharma,1 it had become common practice for Chapter 11 debtors to include a consensual or nonconsensual non-debtor third-party release in their plans of reorganization.
Earlier this year, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) recognized a victory in United States v. Miller. In this bankruptcy case, the trustee attempted to avoid certain transfers that shareholders of the bankrupt company had made, including a $145,000 transfer to the IRS.
Key Takeaway
Luxembourg’s law of 5 August 2005 on financial collateral arrangements, as amended (Collateral Law 2005), continues to offer strong safe-harbor protections for financial collateral arrangements and is now confirmed to apply to insolvency proceedings globally.
Recent Developments
Court of Appeal Ruling
The UK Supreme Court’s recent decision in El-Husseini and another v Invest Bank PSC [2025] UKSC 4 has clarified the circumstances in which section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) provides protection against attempts by debtors to “defeat their creditors and make themselves judgment-proof.” This is a critical decision for insolvency practitioners, any corporate or fund which is involved in distressed deals and beyond to acquirers who were not aware they were dealing in distressed assets.
“[T]he appellant would not have acquired priority over other creditors by the sheriff’s levy, for the obvious reason that the right of property in the goods seized under the execution had previously passed” to the assignee under Debtor’s ABC.
- Reed v McIntyre, 98 U.S. 507, 512 (1878).
Facts
The Debtor, in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Reed v. McIntyre opinion, is a merchant.
Chapter 11 plans contain various releases -- some in favor of the debtor and some in favor of certain nondebtor third parties. However, while creditors are bound by a Chapter 11 discharge, creditors have options for how to deal with a plan's third-party release.
Key Issues
CHAPTER 11 DISCHARGE
The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.
And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.