In January and February of 2012, Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released two decisions¹ in which he authorized a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing charge, an administration charge, and a directors and officers (“D&O”) charge ranking ahead of, among other claims, possible pension deemed trusts over the objection of the debtor companies’ unions and on notice to the members of the companies’ pension administration committees.

Arctic Glacier Income Fund (CSNX:AG.UN) (the “Fund”) has obtained creditor protection from the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench to allow its subsidiaries to continue normal operations as the Fund seeks new investors.

The Arctic Glacier Income Fund is an unincorporated, open-end mutual fund trust. The Fund's head office is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Arctic Glacier's operating subsidiaries manufacture and distribute packaged ice products in Canada and United States.

Lawrence Gold recently presented on abuses of the Repair and Storage Liens Act (Ontario) (“RSLA”) impacting commercial finance and insurance companies to the Ontario Personal Property Security Legislation Committee (“PPSL Committee”). As changes to the RSLA will likely not be implemented in the near future, concerns regarding abuse of lien claimant rights are of significant importance to the industry.

The Repair and Storage Liens Act¹ (the “RSLA”) endeavors to protect the rights of persons that maintain or increase the value of collateral though repair and/or storage services.

Since Nortel Networks Corporation and a number of related companies (together, “Nortel”), initiated a reorganization under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) over two years ago, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (the “MOE”) has sought to hold Nortel responsible to remediate environmental contamination remaining on properties once or currently owned by Nortel. Nortel has maintained that its responsibility for the environmental contamination should not be prioritized ahead of its other obligations.

In a decision dated January 11, 2012, a New York court applied the “separate entity rule” to dismiss a judgment creditor’s special proceeding against a garnishee bank, confirming that the rule remains alive and well in New York.  Under the separate entity rule, bank branches are treated as separate legal entities for the purposes of attachment and garnishment.  Where the rule applies, a judgment creditor seeking to restrain a judgment debtor’s bank account must serve the post-judgment restraining notice upon the bank branch where the account is maintained.    

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Re Indalex.

In the decision of Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in In the Matter of Aero Inventory (UK) Limited and Aero Inventory PLC, the Court held that proceeds of a fraudulent preference action recovered by a trustee in bankruptcy under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) may be subject to the rights of secured creditors, to the extent secured creditors had rights in the collateral in question at the time of the impugned transaction.

In a succinct decision rendered on January 12, the same day as the hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada finally settled the question of whether requirements to pay, issued pursuant to section 317 of the Excise Tax Act ("ETA") prior to the bankruptcy of a tax debtor, but not paid before such time, remain valid against the garnishee.1 Supreme Court Justice LeBel, speaking on behalf of the Court, simply stated that the Court agreed with the reasons of Noël J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge in Delaware has held that the two-year "look-back" period in which a transfer occurring within two years of the bankruptcy petition filing date may be avoided, under Section 548 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, cannot be equitably tolled. After some inconsistent orders about whether the courts may broaden the look-back period, this decision should give greater certainty to lenders when evaluating their exposure upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case by a borrower.