In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.

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

In a matter of first impression, the Delaware Court of Chancery held inQuadrant Structured Products Co. Ltd. v. Vertin, No. 6990-VCL, 2015 BL 128889 (Del. Ch. May 4, 2015), that a creditor suing derivatively on behalf of an insolvent corporation does not lose standing to prosecute the derivative claims if the corporation becomes solvent while the lawsuit is pending. In so ruling, the court expressly rejected a “continuous insolvency” or an “irretrievable insolvency” requirement for standing purposes.

In Short

The Situation: When determining and quantifying unfair preference claims in Australia, does the Corporations Act permit liquidators to value transactions forming part of a single "continuous business relationship" (such as a running account) from the point of peak indebtedness, even if doing so disregards earlier transactions that might act to reduce the value of the claim against the creditor?

A company or group's financial distress causes significant turmoil for its owners, directors, managers, employees and often its suppliers and other creditors. For directors in particular, there are significant responsibilities and potential personal liabilities associated with the management of a company where its business is in financial distress.