In Galantis v Alexious, [2019] UKPC 15 the Privy Council concluded that the oppression remedy existing under the Bahamian Companies Act cannot be invoked after the dissolution of a company, with respect to oppressive conduct by directors that occurred before the dissolution of the company.
Two priority issues arise between creditors of a common debtor:
For more than 70 years, the energy industry has been one of Alberta's primary economic engines. It is no secret, however, that large scale oil and natural gas development can have a detrimental impact on the environment if it is not properly managed. This interplay between risk and benefit creates complicated policy and regulatory tensions as exploration and production (E&P) companies become financially distressed. Most stakeholders benefit from responsible resource development, but their interests diverge when a company becomes insolvent.
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently upheld an unreported decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench that unpaid taxes on linear property (which were pipelines and associated facilities in the case at bar) formed only unsecured claims against the debtors.
Bill C-97 (the “Bill”) was introduced in Parliament to implement the federal budget tabled by the Liberal government on March 19, 2019. The Bill includes proposed changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies Creditors’ Arrangements Act (“CCAA”).
A strata wind-up is an excellent way to realize the economic potential of a multi-unit residential property ("strata") by leveraging the value of each strata unit in the strata as a whole to a developer that may want to develop on the strata's property. However, the wind-up process is complex, involving the intersection of real estate, condominium law ("strata property law"), and the law of restructuring.
Winding up of a strata corporation
Good evening,
Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
In a 2018 judgment discussed here, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that, by virtue of s.
KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.