The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision inSun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, has a number of implications for employers, pension plan administrators, as well as both secured and unsecured creditors.

Pursuant to the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (COVID-19) Act 2020 (the COVID Act), “exceptional provision” to the operation of certain parts of the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) was made for a specific period of time, which period could be extended by order of the Government (the Interim Period). Yesterday, the government announced that it was extending the Interim Period until 31 December 2022.

The UK Government has reintroduced the temporary suspension of wrongful trading measures from 26 November 2020 until 30 April 2021 pursuant to The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations. The suspension was originally introduced in March 2020 under section 12 of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and expired on 30 September 2020.

Preventive Restructuring

In brief...

The use of creditors’ schemes of arrangement is on the rise in Australia. Along the way the Australian courts have made valuable contributions to international scheme jurisprudence. In this article we look at some of these contributions and then explore how Australian law might be further developed to remain a leading jurisdiction for creditors’ schemes.

Advantages of schemes as a restructuring tool

Following a suite of recent reforms to Australian insolvency laws, liquidators are now able to assign rights to sue, conferred on them personally by the Corporations Act. The new power to assign is broad. It appears that the implications of the power will need to be clarified by the judiciary before they are fully understood.

In this article, we look at the issues that arise from these legislative amendments along with the opportunities created.

Shortly before insolvency, financially distressed companies often receive monies which appear "morally" to be due to third parties, such as customer deposits or monies due to be received by the company as agent on behalf of its principal. If the company then enters an insolvency process, can it keep the money, leaving the customer/principal with no more than the right to prove, as an unsecured creditor in the insolvency? Or should the money be protected by some form of trust in favour of the "morally entitled" recipient?

A discharge is effective whether or not the secured party intended to discharge that particular registration.  That was the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,1 which left JP Morgan unsecured for $1.5 billion as a result of a paperwork mix-up. Case law in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada suggests that the decision here would be the same.  Consequently, lawyer

A Creditor registered his claim into insolvency proceedings against the debtor within 30 days of the  publication of the resolution on the debtor's bankruptcy in the insolvency register. The Creditor´s insolvency application regarding the claim was refused by the insolvency court because the resolution on the debtor´s bankruptcy had been previously published in the file of the debtor’s spouse’s  insolvency proceedings.

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