A recent decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench1 has raised some questions about purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) proceeds and cross-collateralization of assets secured by these types of security interests. It has been suggested that this decision is unique and establishes that using a PMSI as collateral for other indebtedness of the debtor is dangerous. But is this decision really so radical?

Facts:

In its unanimous decision, Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal modified the common law doctrine of corporate attribution in the bankruptcy and insolvency context to uphold a decision of Ontario Superior Court’s Commercial List, which ordered a corporate officer and his associates, whom collectively orchestrated a fraudulent invoicing scheme, to repay over $30 million to company creditors pursuant to s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

Background

The media is brimming with articles on the rise of cryptocurrencies and digital assets. Whether it’s news on the rising value of Bitcoin, the acquisition of digital art for large amounts of money, the release of the latest Kings of Leon album as an NFT (non fungible token), or articles on people who have invested in cryptocurrency scams, crypto assets are taking center stage.

Pre-packed administration sales, or pre-packs, remain a useful tool in the tool box for quickly and discreetly achieving a rescue of a business. However, that must always be balanced with the need to protect the veracity of the restructuring process and thereby the interests of creditors. In response to criticism of pre-packs, and a recent review of existing industry measures, the Insolvency Service has proposed draft regulations (the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc.

You must have been in isolation if you haven’t heard or read about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco v Lonsdale. It has been hailed by some as opening the floodgates to adjudications by insolvent companies. But as a series of recent judgments show, there remain a number of obstacles that will need to be overcome by insolvent entities seeking to enforce an adjudication award.

The background

The Hungarian government submitted a bill to the Parliament on 12 June 2020 that introduces certain amendments to Act XLIX of 1991 on Bankruptcy and Liquidation Proceedings (Bankruptcy Act) with the effect of 1 August 2020.

In the following, we provide an overview of government assistance that has already been implemented or is planned to mitigate the effects of COVID-19. The KfW Special Program is available as of March 23, 2020 and applications can be submitted. Please be advised that changes may occur at any time.

We are happy to assist you as you move forward and design a targeted and tailor-made reaction to the current challenges.

An important decision[1] has been handed down by the High Court of Australia which relates to the order of payment of statutorily preferred debts out of trust property held by an insolvent corporate trustee.

On 30 May 2018, Law No. 22 of 2018 with respect to the Reorganization and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was introduced in the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain), repealing Legislative Decree No. 11 of 1987 with respect to the Bankruptcy and Composition Law (the Old Law). The Bankruptcy Law recently came into force on 7 December 2018 and represents a modern and extensive reformulation of the bankruptcy regime in Bahrain.

Application to debtors

The Australian corporate insolvency regime is undergoing significant reform. A suite of new amendments have been implemented or proposed, and the new “ipso facto” amendments that have been implemented as part of the second wave of reforms will apply to most contracts entered into after July 1, 2018.