The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case, 1934

Virginia Torrie
{"title":"The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case, 1934","authors":"Virginia Torrie","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3736343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1933, Parliament enacted the corporate restructuring statute which has become Canada’s premier reorganization regime for large companies: The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). Initially, the CCAA provoked controversy among the commercial bar because it bound secured claims, subjecting provincial property rights to federal bankruptcy and insolvency law for the first time. To resolve uncertainty about the validity of the new Act, the Bennett Government referred a constitutional question to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the CCAA as a valid bankruptcy and insolvency statute. This historical study brings to light the fact that the property rights issue – despite being the most powerful argument against the validity of the CCAA – was not made by the litigants, nor addressed in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. It argues that the CCAA reference was a landmark case because it affirmed the ability of bankruptcy and insolvency law to qualify property rights and in so doing construed this federal head of power in relation to the debtor’s financial condition. This dramatically expanded the scope of the federal bankruptcy and insolvency law power at the expense of provincial jurisdiction. It also facilitated the addition of secured creditor remedies such as restructuring and receivership to bankruptcy and insolvency statutes.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3736343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1933, Parliament enacted the corporate restructuring statute which has become Canada’s premier reorganization regime for large companies: The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). Initially, the CCAA provoked controversy among the commercial bar because it bound secured claims, subjecting provincial property rights to federal bankruptcy and insolvency law for the first time. To resolve uncertainty about the validity of the new Act, the Bennett Government referred a constitutional question to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the CCAA as a valid bankruptcy and insolvency statute. This historical study brings to light the fact that the property rights issue – despite being the most powerful argument against the validity of the CCAA – was not made by the litigants, nor addressed in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. It argues that the CCAA reference was a landmark case because it affirmed the ability of bankruptcy and insolvency law to qualify property rights and in so doing construed this federal head of power in relation to the debtor’s financial condition. This dramatically expanded the scope of the federal bankruptcy and insolvency law power at the expense of provincial jurisdiction. It also facilitated the addition of secured creditor remedies such as restructuring and receivership to bankruptcy and insolvency statutes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《公司债权人安排法》参考案例,1934年
1933年,议会颁布了公司重组法规,这已成为加拿大主要的大公司重组制度:公司债权人安排法(“CCAA”)。最初,CCAA在商业律师中引发了争议,因为它约束了担保债权,首次将省级产权纳入联邦破产和资不抵债法。为了解决关于新法案有效性的不确定性,贝内特政府将一个宪法问题提交给加拿大最高法院,该法院认为《联合企业法》是有效的破产和资不抵债法规。这一历史研究揭示了这样一个事实,即产权问题——尽管是反对CCAA有效性的最有力的论据——不是由诉讼当事人提出的,也不是在加拿大最高法院的裁决中解决的。它认为,CCAA的引用是一个具有里程碑意义的案例,因为它肯定了破产和破产法对财产权进行限定的能力,并在这样做时解释了与债务人财务状况有关的联邦权力首脑。这极大地扩大了联邦破产和破产法权力的范围,而牺牲了省级管辖权。它还促进了在破产和资不抵债法规中增加有担保债权人补救办法,如重组和接管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bankruptcy's Equity Canon Insolvency Set Offs in India: A Comparative Perspective Betting on Farms: Feasible Chapter 12 Plans The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act Reference Case, 1934 Bespoke Bankruptcy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1