The restructuring of Sanjel Corporation and its affiliates (previously discussed here) continues to provide interesting developments on the application and interpretation of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.
It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.
Section 11.4 of the CCAA requires that persons identified as critical suppliers to a debtor company continue to provide goods and services on terms and conditions with the existing supply relationship.
There are a number of similarities between restructuring legislation in Canada and the United States. Each of Canada and the United States have adopted a form of the UNCITRAL Model Law Cross-Border Insolvency in order to facilitate cooperation and efficient administration of cases with an international component. In Canada this has occurred through implementation of both Part XIII of the
Introduction
The Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers.
You are probably aware of the useful restructuring and creditor protection process available to insolvent entities in the United States under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In Canada, more than one insolvency regime is available in respect of debtor companies in financial difficulty and those interested in acquiring such companies or their assets. However, because of its flexibility, the most commonly used Canadian regime for larger debtor companies or complicated restructurings is the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the "CCAA").
The Italian Government started the legislative process for a comprehensive restatement of the whole set of rules of insolvency procedures, with specific innovative addresses regarding (to mention only the most important) the concordato preventivo procedure, venue rules, an out-of-court mediation alert process to timely address a risk of insolvency, new forms of security and a streamlined se
Two recent decisions of the Court of Rovereto (16 July 2015) and of the Court of Rimini (1 October 2015) reached opposite conclusions.
The case