In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

In Re Temple City Housing Inc.; Minister of National Revenue v. Temple City Housing Inc. 2007 CarswellAlta 1806 (Alta. Q.B.), Temple City Housing Inc. (“Temple”) filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The Order sought by Temple contemplated that a Debtor-In-Possession credit facility (“DIP Charge”) would be granted. Temple’s major creditor, Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), opposed the granting of the DIP Charge, which would create a court ordered priority over the CRA deemed trust claim.

Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta as the Receiver and Manager of an Alberta Corporation named Klytie’s Development Inc., its Colorado subsidiary, and the two primary shareholders of the debtor companies

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

LEGEND

What follows are blackline documents outlining amendments to the BIA, CCAA and WEPP which have been passed by the government, but not yet proclaimed in force. It is hoped that these comparisons will serve as a useful tool in providing a comprehensive understanding of what the legislation will ultimately look like, when the proposed amendments are proclaimed in force.

In Meunerie B.L. inc., Re (2007), EYB 2007-126274, 2007 QCCA 1601 (Que. C.A.) affirming (2006), EYB 2006-109274, 2006 QCCS 4914 (Que. S.C.) Meunerie B.L. Inc. (“Meunerie”) made an assignment in accordance with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). At the time of bankruptcy Meunerie was a mill which processed corn purchased from corn producers. Corn that was delivered to Meunerie was stored on site in silos

Preferred maritime liens can raise challenging issues during maritime disputes—especially during bankruptcy. Creditors may encounter problems when filing for seizure due to their unique nature, with venue is becoming a determining factor.

KEY POINTS

The Czech Supreme Court recently issued two decisions having significant impact on the position of secured creditors (i.e. generally financial institutions) within insolvency proceedings. Both decisions stem from one of the first major insolvencies conducted under the (then new) Czech Insolvency Act effective from 2008 in respect of the group of companies in a glass-making business. This article briefly reviews those decisions and points out their practical effects on the rights of secured creditors.

Security interest in rental income

The administrators of Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) have announced that, following a ruling in the Frankfurt Regional Court, LBIE’s client money claim against Lehman Brothers Bankhaus AG (Bankhaus) is to be included in the insolvency claims of Bankhaus as an ordinary creditor. The judgment should result in a higher payout for LBIE’s client money claimants.(Source: Update on Client Money Held at Lehman Bankhaus)