Individuals who serve as directors or offices of public companies in Canada face an increasing amount of shareholder litigation and a complex web of legal and regulatory provisions that must be  managed, navigated and adhered to.  The challenge to directors only increases when the company is insolvent, on the eve of insolvency or otherwise in some form of financial distress.  If the insolvency is driven by a liquidity crisis the company may be hard-pressed to maintain day-to-day operations and preserve going concern value for stakeholder groups.  Alternatively, if the pr

During the spring of 2012, the Canadian Appeals Monitor posted a five-part series on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Van Breda, Black, and

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision

The case

The receiver of a bankrupt joint-stock company sued its directors before the Court of Rome, in order to ascertain their liability, pursuant to Article 146 of Bankruptcy Law.

More precisely, the bankruptcy was considered the result of a transaction particularly burdensome with respect to the company’s share capital and unjustified in relation to the economic value of the block of shares acquired.

According to decision no. 17441, of 31 August 2016, of the First Division of the Supreme Civil Court, the liability of directors without management power cannot originate from a general failure to supervise – that would be identified in the facts as a strict liability – but must be attributed to the breach of the duty to act in an informed way, on the basis of both information to be released by executive directors and information that non-executive directors can gather on their own initiative.

The Supreme Court (decision No. 20559 of 13 October 2015), decided that a single application for admission to theprocedure is not admissible if it involves a group, with a single proposal for all the creditors of the different companies,although the relevant assets and liabilities are kept formally separated.

The case

The Netherlands is planning to adopt new restructuring legislation, allowing for court confirmation of extrajudicial restructuring plans (Wet Homologatie Onderhands Akkoord, or WHOA). The bill combines features of the U.S. chapter 11 procedure and the English Scheme of Arrangement. With its broad range of jurisdiction and flexibility, the "Dutch Scheme" will prove to be an effective addition to the restructuring toolbox for both Dutch and non-Dutch entities, for groups of companies, and with the possibility of automatic recognition throughout the European Union.

In Short

The Situation: Section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (WA) ("Act")provides that if a creditor and a company in liquidation have mutual dealings, the creditor must offset any sum the creditor owes to the company in liquidation against debt owed by the company.

The Question: Does the existence of a third party security interest over circulating assets (floating charge) which are intended to be set off against other debts prevent the dealings from being "mutual"?

In Short

The Situation: The statutory moratorium period for voluntary administrators to restructure an insolvent company often is too short to find a solution. Administrators frequently utilise "holding" deeds of company arrangement ("DOCAs") to extend the moratorium and "buy" time to investigate potential restructuring opportunities. A creditor challenged this practice by arguing that holding DOCAs are invalid.

The Question: Are holding DOCAs valid under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth)?

In Assured Guaranty Corp. v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico, 872 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code gave an unsecured creditors’ committee an "unconditional right to intervene," within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1), in an adversary proceeding commenced during the course of a bankruptcy case.