What do a car crash in Alberta, a delinquent farm mortgage in Saskatchewan and an unpaid highway toll ticket in Ontario have in common?

They all ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Factoring transactions, in which a buyer purchases outright or acquires an interest in a seller’s accounts receivable, are becoming increasingly common. Initially, the buyer must determine whether the transaction is to be recourse or non-recourse to the seller. In other words, can the buyer seek a remedy against the seller if the receivable is bad, or doesn’t pay, or does the buyer bear the entire credit risk of the deal, irrespective of whether the receivable is good? Both recourse and non-recourse transactions raise a handful of interesting considerations in bankruptcy situations.

In August I presented on cross-border insolvency at the joint Federal Court of Australia and Law Council of Australia conference on corporations law. The audience consisted of over 30 Federal Court judges and a range of other experienced corporate and insolvency lawyers.

FI and D&O Since our last update, there have been significant developments in the FI and D&O landscape. November saw the first ever UK deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) announced between the SFO and Standard Bank. The DPA process has been available but unused since 2014 so the judgment and the SFO’s comments thereafter provided some much needed guidance on what the process involved. Significantly, weight was placed on Standard Bank’s early self-reporting and cooperation.

When a company files for bankruptcy, employees are faced with uncertainty on a number of issues. Everything from outstanding wages to benefit entitlements are suddenly at risk. Further, when a company becomes insolvent, employees are often laid off in circumstances that fail to satisfy statutory or common law notice period entitlements. However, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”), employees are often barred from fully recovering what they are owed.

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court sheds light on when a commercial landlord is required to give consent to an assignment of lease or sublease.

In the spring of 2010, BioSyntech, a start-up biotechnology company, developing a cartilage-repair product, BST-Car Gel, filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, the intellectual property relating to the BST-Car Gel was sold.

On August 7, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) released its decision in Grant Forest Products Inc. v.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.

In a judgment rendered in the case of 9210-6905 Québec Inc. (proposal of),1 the Superior Court of Québec held that an interim receiver is not required to obtain a clearance certificate from the tax authorities before proceeding with the distribution of a debtor's property, and is not subject to personal liability for this reason.