On November 10, 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC") released its long-awaited decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v Petrowest Corp., 2022 SCC 41(“Peace River”), which addresses the interaction between insolvency law's single proceeding model and arbitration law’s emphasis on contractually bargained-for rights – an interaction often described as “a conflict of near polar extremes”.
On November 3, 2022, new legislation aimed at providing additional priority to pensions in insolvency proceedings moved one step closer to becoming law.
Overview and Why This Case Matters
On November 20, 2021, long-awaited amendments to the Wage Earner Protection Program (“WEPP”) came into force. The amendments are a welcome change to WEPP and will close some of the remaining gaps in the program designed to protect some of the most vulnerable stakeholders in an insolvency proceeding – employees.
The Wage Earner Protection Program
Introduction:
Aggrieved by the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) refusing to condone a delay of 44 (forty-four) days in filing an appeal against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Appellant (i.e., National Spot Exchange Limited) preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The recent decision of Justice B.E.
The Federal Court of Australia has ordered two company directors to personally compensate customers, pay a large fine and be disqualified from managing a corporation for being ‘knowingly concerned’ in unconscionable conduct by their company and ‘causing it’ to make false or misleading representations, in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law.
The orders made by the Federal Court of Australia against the company directors of Australian 4WD Hire, a vehicle rental company, were:
Une décision récente rendue par la Cour supérieure dans le district judiciaire de Montréal1 s’inscrit dans la tendance jurisprudentielle en matière de nomination de séquestre en vertu de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (« L.F.I. »), soit la nécessité que le préavis d’exercice visé au Code civil du Québec (« C.c.Q. ») soit transmis et expiré préalablement à la demande de nomination.
Cette décision fait partie d’une controverse jurisprudentielle qui devra être tranchée par la Cour d’appel prochainement.
A recent judgment rendered by the Superior Court in the judicial district of Montréal1 is in line with the current trend in rulings regarding the appointment of receivers under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“B.I.A.”), namely the requirement that the notice of exercise of a hypothecary right referred to in the Civil Code of Quebec (“C.C.Q.”) be submitted, and the time limit specified in the notice must have expired, prior to the application to appoint a receiver.
The Tenor of the Astounding IBC Amendment Act 2020
Notification Raising the Threshold Limit for Triggering the Insolvency