Virginia Torrie Reinventing Bankruptcy Law: A History of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2020. 300 pp.

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW Canadian Journal of Law and Society Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1017/cls.2021.24
Anna J. Lund
{"title":"Virginia Torrie Reinventing Bankruptcy Law: A History of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangements Act. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2020. 300 pp.","authors":"Anna J. Lund","doi":"10.1017/cls.2021.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Reinventing Bankruptcy Law,Virginia Torrie challenges the orthodox history of The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The CCAA is used in contemporary insolvency practice to liquidate or restructure large businesses. Since the 1980s, courts have adopted a remarkably flexible approach to interpreting the CCAA, justifying their approach on the grounds that the statute’s underlying policy is to facilitate the restructuring of large businesses and thereby prevent the negative repercussions to jobs and local economies that result when businesses are liquidated. Torrie argues that courts have misunderstood the underlying policy of the CCAA, which, she argues, has always been aimed at benefiting secured creditors. Her book is a welcome addition to the small but growing body of historical scholarship on Canadian commercial law. I outline here central points in her analysis. A secured creditor faced with a distressed debtor may more effectively minimize its losses by restructuring the debtor’s obligations (e.g., giving the debtormore time to pay) than by liquidating the debtor (e.g., shutting down the debtor and selling off its assets). Liquidation can be particularly unprofitable during times of generalized economic distress, when there may be little demand for a debtor’s assets. In the early twentieth century in Canada, secured creditors had a contractual right to restructure a debtor’s payment obligations. Secured creditors would purchase bonds issued by a debtor. The bonds were governed by trust deeds, and the trust deed agreements entitled creditors to restructure the underlying debt. In the 1920s and 1930s, in an attempt to attract American investment, some trust deed agreements dropped the restructuring provision.When the Great Depression hit in the 1930s, many businesses were unable to pay their debts and their secured creditors had no effective restructuring tool. The financial fallout threatened the solvency of some of Canada’s big financial institutions because they held bonds issued by the troubled businesses. Failure of these institutions was politically unpalatable, so the federal government passed the CCAA to provide secured creditors with a statutory restructuring remedy. The legal community greeted the CCAAwith scepticism. The statute purported to bind secured creditors, but in the 1930s, most people believed that secured creditors’ remedies were the exclusive purview of provincial governments. To assuage doubters, the federal government referred the legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1934, the Court upheld the CCAA as a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s bankruptcy and insolvency power. However, the decision did not explicitly address the legislation’s ability to bind secured creditors. Doubts about the CCAA’s constitutionality remained until 1937, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upheld the Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act as","PeriodicalId":45293,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","volume":"36 1","pages":"533 - 535"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2021.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Reinventing Bankruptcy Law,Virginia Torrie challenges the orthodox history of The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The CCAA is used in contemporary insolvency practice to liquidate or restructure large businesses. Since the 1980s, courts have adopted a remarkably flexible approach to interpreting the CCAA, justifying their approach on the grounds that the statute’s underlying policy is to facilitate the restructuring of large businesses and thereby prevent the negative repercussions to jobs and local economies that result when businesses are liquidated. Torrie argues that courts have misunderstood the underlying policy of the CCAA, which, she argues, has always been aimed at benefiting secured creditors. Her book is a welcome addition to the small but growing body of historical scholarship on Canadian commercial law. I outline here central points in her analysis. A secured creditor faced with a distressed debtor may more effectively minimize its losses by restructuring the debtor’s obligations (e.g., giving the debtormore time to pay) than by liquidating the debtor (e.g., shutting down the debtor and selling off its assets). Liquidation can be particularly unprofitable during times of generalized economic distress, when there may be little demand for a debtor’s assets. In the early twentieth century in Canada, secured creditors had a contractual right to restructure a debtor’s payment obligations. Secured creditors would purchase bonds issued by a debtor. The bonds were governed by trust deeds, and the trust deed agreements entitled creditors to restructure the underlying debt. In the 1920s and 1930s, in an attempt to attract American investment, some trust deed agreements dropped the restructuring provision.When the Great Depression hit in the 1930s, many businesses were unable to pay their debts and their secured creditors had no effective restructuring tool. The financial fallout threatened the solvency of some of Canada’s big financial institutions because they held bonds issued by the troubled businesses. Failure of these institutions was politically unpalatable, so the federal government passed the CCAA to provide secured creditors with a statutory restructuring remedy. The legal community greeted the CCAAwith scepticism. The statute purported to bind secured creditors, but in the 1930s, most people believed that secured creditors’ remedies were the exclusive purview of provincial governments. To assuage doubters, the federal government referred the legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1934, the Court upheld the CCAA as a constitutional exercise of the federal government’s bankruptcy and insolvency power. However, the decision did not explicitly address the legislation’s ability to bind secured creditors. Doubts about the CCAA’s constitutionality remained until 1937, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upheld the Farmers’ Creditors Arrangement Act as
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
弗吉尼亚托里重整破产法:公司债权人安排法的历史。多伦多:多伦多大学出版社,2020年。300页。
在《重塑破产法》一书中,维吉尼亚•托里挑战了《公司债权人安排法》(“CCAA”)的正统历史。CCAA在当代破产实践中用于清算或重组大型企业。自20世纪80年代以来,法院采用了一种非常灵活的方法来解释《商业企业法》,理由是该法规的基本政策是促进大型企业的重组,从而防止企业清算对就业和地方经济造成的负面影响。Torrie认为,法院误解了CCAA的基本政策,她认为,该政策一直旨在使有担保的债权人受益。她的书是一个受欢迎的补充,对加拿大商业法的历史学术虽小,但不断增长。我在这里概述她分析的要点。面对陷入困境的债务人,有担保的债权人可以通过重组债务人的义务(例如,给债务人更多的时间付款)比清算债务人(例如,关闭债务人并出售其资产)更有效地减少其损失。在经济普遍不景气的时候,对债务人资产的需求可能很少,清算尤其无利可图。在二十世纪初的加拿大,有担保债权人根据合同有权重组债务人的支付义务。有担保债权人将购买债务人发行的债券。债券由信托契约管理,信托契约协议赋予债权人重组基础债务的权利。在20世纪20年代和30年代,为了吸引美国投资,一些信托契约协议放弃了重组条款。上世纪30年代大萧条袭来时,许多企业无力偿还债务,有担保的债权人也没有有效的重组工具。金融危机的余波威胁到加拿大一些大型金融机构的偿付能力,因为它们持有问题企业发行的债券。这些机构的失败在政治上是令人不快的,因此联邦政府通过了CCAA,为有担保的债权人提供法定重组补救措施。法律界对ccaa持怀疑态度。该法规旨在约束有担保债权人,但在20世纪30年代,大多数人认为有担保债权人的救济是省政府的专属权限。为了平息质疑,联邦政府将立法提交给加拿大最高法院。1934年,法院支持CCAA作为联邦政府破产和资不抵债权力的宪法行使。然而,该决定没有明确解决该立法对有担保债权人的约束能力。对CCAA合宪性的质疑一直持续到1937年,当时枢密院司法委员会支持《农民债权人安排法》
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Law and Society is pleased to announce that it has a new home and editorial board. As of January 2008, the Journal is housed in the Law Department at Carleton University. Michel Coutu and Mariana Valverde are the Journal’s new co-editors (in French and English respectively) and Dawn Moore is now serving as the Journal’s Managing Editor. As always, the journal is committed to publishing high caliber, original academic work in the field of law and society scholarship. CJLS/RCDS has wide circulation and an international reputation for showcasing quality scholarship that speaks to both theoretical and empirical issues in sociolegal studies.
期刊最新文献
Reasonable Bail or Bail at All Costs? Defence Counsel Perspectives on a Coercive Environment L’éthique et l’éthos de la profession chez les avocats en droit criminel et en droit social Unthinkable, Thinkable, and Back Again: The Use of Incarceration in Ontario during the COVID-19 Pandemic Le recours aux modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits : une exploration au prisme d’une analyse des coûts humains et financiers de la justice Bad Religion and Bad Business: The History of the Canadian Witchcraft Provision
×
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