Insolvency proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) are generally practical and solution-oriented. Creativity is rewarded and, if there is a conflict between insolvency law’s practical focus on achieving desirable commercial outcomes on the one hand, and the requirements—often technical in nature—under other statutes such as the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) on the other, courts often apply insolvency law in a manner that gives priority to achieving those commercial outcomes.

Appeals under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) generally result in an automatic stay of the order under appeal—a potentially costly and disruptive outcome. Accordingly, the BIA requires by default that an interested party first seek leave to appeal a lower court decision unless its appeal meets a set of prescribed circumstances that appears broad but, in practice, has been construed very narrowly by the courts (i.e., making it difficult to obtain leave to appeal). In Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Fund sponsors continue to face a challenging fundraising market and many are sensitive to increasing investor demand for liquidity. Higher interest rates and public market dislocation continue to make capital-raising difficult, while decreased fund distributions are limiting capital available for new commitments, leading investors to prioritize liquidity and invest cautiously.

The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta (the Court) recently revisited the stringent boundaries on the types of claims that can be brought against court-appointed officers. The decision in North v Davison, 2024 ABKB 242 (the Decision) highlighted the protective measures that courts employ to safeguard the integrity and function of receivership proceedings against unfounded or speculative claims. In the Decision, the Court struck down a counterclaim against Ernst & Young Inc.

Corporate governance practices are truly put to the test in two instances: 1) the commencement of litigation; and 2) entry into the zone of insolvency. The latter (distressed circumstances) increases the likelihood of the former (claims against directors and officers).

When distressed circumstances do arise, it is critical to ensure that best practices are in place and adhered to. Often, there may be little time in a crisis to consider and adopt new governance practices given the speed at which events may unfold. Directors need to get it right, and quickly.

In insolvency proceedings, it can be difficult to navigate how to close out a transaction with an insolvent counterparty without suffering excessive collateral damage. One question that may arise in this process is whether a contract with the insolvent party can be relied upon. Canadian insolvency laws provide special treatment for a certain category of contracts called eligible financial contracts (EFCs).

Insolvency legislation is full of trade-offs—chief among them is expediency versus fairness. On the one hand, insolvencies are often urgent matters with the fate of the debtor’s business or the value of its assets resting on a speedy and efficient resolution of its creditors’ claims. On the other hand, those creditors expect to be treated fairly and receive a real opportunity to advance and resolve their claims, which often entails a slow, deliberate process.

With the recent flurry of reverse vesting orders (RVOs) in Canadian insolvency proceedings in the last two years, courts have warned against over-use of this distressed M&A structure. In PaySlate Inc. (Re), 2023 BCSC 608, the Supreme Court of British Columbia hit reverse.

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was closed by its California state regulators on Friday, March 10, 2023, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. As the market absorbed these developments, customers of SVB and other regional banks rushed to protect their deposits over the weekend, resulting in the closure of Signature Bank in New York, and the announcement on Sunday that all deposits at SVB and SB were moved to newly formed bridge banks.

What you need to know:

Where an individual is both a corporate director and a shareholder, can they be held personally liable for stripping value from a corporation to defeat corporate creditors? “Yes”, according to the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s recent decision in FNF Enterprises Inc. v. Wag and Train Inc, 2023 ONCA 92. But what is the legal basis for imposing personal liability for the corporation’s obligations?