The new housing administration regime for registered providers of social housing is now in force. Our latest Insight introduces the new legislation and highlights some of the key ways in which a housing administration will differ from a normal administration process.

In a recent decision[1], the British Columbia Supreme Court (the “Court”) determined that purported secured loans made by a shareholder were properly characterized as equity contributions to the subject company and therefore subordinate to the claims of the company’s creditors.

This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:

Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended

The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.

As solar industry observers will already know, on April 21st, 2016, (the “Filing Date”) SunEdison, Inc. (“SunEdison”) and several of its U.S. and international subsidiaries (the "SunEdison Group") filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Chapter 11 Proceedings”)in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “ US Bankruptcy Court”).¹

It’s been almost two years since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Indalex Ltd., Re.1 Currently, Canada’s lower courts are being challenged to interpret the decision in a variety of different contexts. The purpose of this article is to review the Indalex decision within the broader context of pre- and post-Indalex case law and to briefly comment on its impact in the lending marketplace. 

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Tallgrass¹⁰ clarifies the threshold that a company must meet when it seeks relief pursuant to the CCAA¹¹, particularly when such an application is met with a competing applicati

What happens if one party to a contract fails to perform? Can the innocent party get all of its losses back? What happens if the losses are difficult to prove?

Here, we look at what you can claim and how to protect your position.

The general rule

Damages for breach of contract are usually intended to compensate the injured party for its losses arising naturally from the breach or which were within the parties' contemplation when the contract was made.

This article was written by Greg Standing, partner in Wragge & Co LLP's finance, insolvency, recoveries and sales team and published in the July issue of Motor Finance.

When a claimant discontinues its claim, the usual position is that it has to pay the defendant's reasonable legal costs. This is the general presumption under the Civil Procedure Rules and applies unless there is good reason for it not to.

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently ruled on a case1 dealing with the priority of claims to the bank accounts of a petroleum operator which had gone into receivership, where the operatorship was governed by the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure. The operator had failed to pay to the non-operators revenues of approximately $300,000, having only $58,000 left in the commingled account. The Operating Procedure imposes a trust on the production revenues but also expressly allows intermingling of these funds with the operator's general funds.

The absence of an intention to put assets out of the reach of creditors will thwart applications under the Insolvency Act to set declarations of trust or transfers aside.