The Alberta Court of King’s Bench (the Court) has delivered an important decision in the insolvency proceedings of Wolverine Energy and Infrastructure Inc. (WEI), voiding insider payments and imposing personal liability on a former executive. The ruling highlights the significant risks associated with insider transactions during financial distress and clarifies how courts apply statutory remedies under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), the Fraudulent Preferences Act (FPA), and the Statute of Elizabeth (SOE).

In the recent decision of AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (Re) (“AlphaBow”),^[1] the Alberta Court of King’s Bench dismissed AlphaBow’s application to stay the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (“AER”) request for a security deposit for the duration of its restructuring proceedings.

Background

Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is designed to give “honest, but unfortunate debtors” a “fresh start” by automatically staying litigation and dealing with the bankrupt’s debts and liabilities in an orderly fashion. But what if the bankrupt was dishonest? Should they be entitled to have litigation stayed and their debts discharged? The BIA contains tools to address this.

On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).

As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Should a corporation be affixed with the fraudulent or other nefarious intent of its directing minds? The answer to this question is of key importance in several contexts where the “intent” of the corporation leads to specific legal consequences.

Introduction

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Court determined that while disgorgement orders made by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) survive bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), administrative penalties may not.