Contributed by William Malouf and Alexandra Stead, Senior Associates, Baker McKenzie

Introduction

The practice area of bankruptcy & insolvency is in a constant state of flux. 2020 and 2021 saw some of the biggest reforms to our insolvency framework in 30 years, as businesses struggled financially with the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Au Québec, le droit de la consommation évolue régulièrement et la Loi sur la protection du consommateur (L.P.C.) continue de faire l’objet de plusieurs décisions des tribunaux chaque mois.

À l’occasion de la publication de ce nouveau bulletin de notre série en droit de la consommation, nous présentons les développements récents dans ce domaine sous l’angle des décisions des quelque 12 derniers mois de la Cour d’appel du Québec, qui apportent un éclairage sur des règles de la L.P.C.

The English High Court has sanctioned Smile Telecom Holding Limited's (Smile) restructuring plan, despite there being no parallel restructuring proceedings in Mauritius, the place of Smile's incorporation.

Background

Consumer law in Québec remains in constant evolution, and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) continues to be the subject of many court decisions each month.

In this new article in our series on consumer law, we present recent developments in this area from the perspective of Québec Court of Appeal decisions over the past 12 months, which shed some light on the rules of the CPA.

OVERVIEW

Legislation

Attached is the April 2022 publication of our Technical Brief for Investment Funds, a newsletter developed by the Loeb Smith Cayman Islands Investment Funds Technical Team. This Technical Brief covers, among other thing, a number of recent Cayman case law authorities which will have an impact on the practical application of Cayman Islands' law:

1 GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has recently delivered helpful clarification on the principles which apply with respect to security for costs when the official liquidators of an insolvent fund seek to bring claims against its former management. Where it is clear to the Court that a defendant was responsible for management decisions immediately before a company entered insolvency, the Court may exercise its discretion, notwithstanding the impecuniosity of the plaintiff company, not to order payment of security for costs.

Defendants to a proceeding related to a breach of an Asset Sale Agreement, successfully joined directors to the action by way of a third party notice, seeking damages for liability incurred where those directors had breached their directors obligations to discharge their duties with due care and diligence (Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).