In brief

Major insolvency reform: Getting the (ipso) factos straight

In brief

In the recent case of Official Receiver v Zhi Charles (FACV 8/2015) (5 November 2015), the Court of Final Appeal (the "CFA") found s 30A(10)(a) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6) (the "BO") unconstitutional.

In Wong Tak Man, Stephen & Another v Cheung Siu Fai & Ors [2015] HMP 1431/2012, the Court held that transfers of funds made by a bankrupt were not transactions at undervalue or unfair preferences pursuant to s49 and s50 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (the "BO"). This case serves as a useful reminder on how the Court will interpret s49 and s50 BO, as deemed to be applied in a corporate context by s.266B(1)(a) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32).

Facts 

In Paul David Wood & Anor v Timothy Darren Baker & Ors, the joint trustees in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's property successfully obtained injunctions freezing the assets and business of the respondents and restraining them from dealing with such assets and business.  This case is an illustration of how the court may apply the "evasion principle", a principle identified in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd, in piercing the corporate veil.

Background

Das Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 hat Deutschland infiziert. Auch solide Unternehmen drohen in Folge dessen unverschuldet in die Krise zu stürzen. Während die operativen Tätigkeiten aufgrund der Isolierung ganzer Belegschaften oder gesprengten Lieferketten vorübergehend eingestellt werden, bleiben Verbindlichkeiten wie Miete, Gehälter, Sozialabgaben und Kapitaldienst in rechtlicher Hinsicht gegen das Coronavirus immun. Fortlaufende Fixkosten denen kein operatives Ergebnis gegenübersteht, belasten die Liquidität und stellen einen existenzbedrohenden Angriff für jede Unternehmensfinanzierung dar.

Key points

• Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.

• A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.

• Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.

In a decision released April 27, 2016 in LBP Holdings Ltd. v. Allied Nevada Gold Corp., Justice Belobaba dismissed a motion by a representative plaintiff to add certain underwriters as defendants to a securities class proceeding. The defendant gold mining company, Allied Nevada, effected a secondary public offering financed as a "bought deal" by two underwriters.

On July 7, 2008, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") was proclaimed into force, along with complementary amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") and other related statutes. The new program protects a limited amount of the unpaid wages of employees when an employer becomes bankrupt or is placed into receivership, and the amendments to the BIA provide for the priority of some un-remitted pension contributions.

The Wage Earner Protection Program (the "WEPP")

This Fall the Alberta Surface Rights Board (the “Board”) Panel issued its decision in Lemke v Petroglobe Inc, 2015 ABSRB 740. The Panel decided that it did not have authority to proceed with a claim by a landowner for unpaid compensation that had accrued before the date that the operator was assigned into bankruptcy.