In the recent case of Queensland Mining Corporation Ltd v Butmall Pty Ltd (in liq), the Court held that the liquidators' relationship with a major creditor of the company in liquidation (Butmall) did not per se amount to a conflict of interest. 

Butmall applied to have its liquidators removed as they were the auditors of its major creditor (QMC), against whom Butmall purported to have considerable counterclaims.

Did you know... that the court may, in special circumstances, exercise its discretion to appoint pre-existing receivers as a company’s provisional liquidators.

In the recent decision ofRe K Vision International Investment (Hong Kong) Limited, the Honourable Mr. Justice Barma confirmed that, where the circumstances require it, the court will exercise its discretion to appoint pre-existing receivers of a company’s assets as that company’s provisional liquidators provided that potential conflicts of interest are identified and appropriately addressed.

The Mexican insolvency and bankruptcy law (“Ley de Concursos Mercantiles” or “LCM“) that came into effect on May 12, 2000, abrogated the Mexican Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payments Law. One of the stated purposes of the LCM was to mitigate the impact that globalization and the free market had on Mexican corporations, especially after ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. The LCM, therefore, seeks to preserve businesses facing a general default on the payment of their obligations and thereby preserve jobs in Mexico.

In our October 2010 edition of Middle East Exchange, we looked at the general duties which directors and managers of UAE companies owe to their companies and their shareholders. In this edition, we consider the position where the company's financial position deteriorates. As directors or managers struggle with the inevitable commercial and operational pressures, what additional legal responsibilities and potential liabilities does UAE law place upon them?

​The Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision on the appeals taken from the trial decision of Justice McEwen in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP et al.

In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11

A Summary

In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers.

This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal surprised many by deciding that in the context of the CCAA proceedings of Indalex, pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over security held by secured DIP lenders. The Court granted priority for the entire wind-up deficiency of two pension plans over the DIP lender’s security. If not reversed on appeal, the ruling creates a potential worst case scenario for secured lenders in Ontario and could affect availability of credit for all employers who provide defined benefit pension plans for their employees.