INTRODUCTION
The use of trusts for asset protection purposes is well established and – in principle – not improper. However, recent history has seen increasing attempts by creditors to have transfers of assets unwound. A recent UK Supreme Court case saw the Court effectively achieve this by way of a resulting trust finding.1 This article considers the issue from a different angle: insolvency legislation.
1
MADRID E-BULLETIN
RESTRUCTURING, TURNAROUND AND INSOLVENCY
REFORM OF SPANISH INSOLVENCY LEGISLATION
On Friday 7 March 2014 the Spanish Council of Ministers approved Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, of 7 March, which adopts urgent measures on the refinancing and restructuring of corporate debt. The above Royal Decree-Law introduces a series of significant reforms to the Spanish Insolvency Act 22/2003, of 9 July, (the "Insolvency Act"). The Royal Decree-Law has entered into force on 10 March 2014.
In a recent decision, the German courts clarified the circumstances under which repayments on a loan not granted by a direct shareholder of an insolvent borrower could qualify as repayments on a shareholder loan, and therefore avoid being contested in insolvency proceedings.
Background
The German Insolvency Act (the Act) states that certain company "cash transactions" may be contested in insolvency proceedings only in limited circumstances. Earlier this year, the German Federal Court of Justice clarified that this "cash transaction privilege" does not apply to securities granted by a debtor company for shareholder loans.
Recent regulations confirm that the GST/HST deemed trust has priority over all security interests and charges except for land or building charges. That exception has its own limitations. It is limited to the amount owing to the secured creditor at the time the tax debtor failed to remit the GST/HST. It also forces the secured creditor to look first to its other security; a kind of forced marshalling.
On December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada ( SCC) released its decision in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. In its decision, the SCC affirmed the importance of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) as a flexible restructuring tool, and clarified the source and limits of the Court’s authority during CCAA proceedings. Furthermore, the Court overruled the judgment of the B.C.
On October 26, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) released its decision in Canadian Petcetera Limited Partnership v. 2876 R Holdings Ltd., 2010 BCCA 469 (Petcetera), an important case that addresses the rights of landlords when a tenant has filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal (NOI) under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA).
In the recent decision of Justice Cumming In the Matter of the Proposal of Hypnotic Clubs Inc. (“Hypnotic” or the “Debtor”) the court dismissed a motion by the Debtor for a sale of its assets pursuant to s.65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).
On January 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al., opening the doors to third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings in Canada.
Background
In a recent decision released by Madam Justice Kent of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench (the “Court”) the Court declined to grant Octagon Properties Group Ltd. and certain affiliates (“Octagon” or the “Debtors”) relief pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.C36 (“CCAA”).