This article has been contributed by Martin Desrosiers and Julien Morissette, partner and associate respectively, in the Insolvency & Restructuring Group of
The general principle is that security granted on tangible property also charges the property’s accessories. That is not the case however when intellectual property (“IP”) rights belonging to a third party attach to inventory1. For such rights are not considered to be accessories and thus are not charged by the security, unless the holder of the IP rights has otherwise agreed.
If the grantor of the security goes bankrupt, enforcement of the creditor’s security could thus be compromised because of the third-party IP rights.
36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)
36238 Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (Charter of Rights – Mandatory minimum sentences – Cruel and unusual punishment – Criminal law – Sentencing)
Au début de 2015, les sociétés 9171665 Canada Ltd. et Connacher Oil and Gas Limited (collectivement, « Connacher ») ont présenté à la Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») une demande d’ordonnance finale en vertu de l’article 192 de la Loi canadienne sur les sociétés par actions (la « LCSA ») en vue de l’approbation d’un plan d’arrangement visant la restructuration de Connacher (l’« Arrangement »). Le 2 avril 2015, le juge C.M.
In early 2015, 9171665 Canada Ltd. and Connacher Oil and Gas Ltd. (together Connacher) applied to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench (Court) for a final order pursuant to section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) for the approval of a plan of arrangement to restructure Connacher (Arrangement). On April 2, 2015, Justice C.M. Jones rejected Connacher's restructuring proposal for the reasons set out below.
Avant de rendre sa décision, la Cour fait état de la « controverse jurisprudentielle » quant à la nécessité de signifier au préalable les préavis d’exercice du droit hypothécaire du Code civil du Québec avant d’être autorisé à procéder à une vente d’actifs en vertu de l’article 243 LFI. Trois (3) décisions en ce sens ont été rendues par la Cour du district de Saint-François à ce sujet, alors qu’une (1) décision rendue dans le district de Montréal est à l’effet contraire.
DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW 1 INTRODUCTION 2 A SNAPSHOT OF CANADA 3 FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA 4 BUSINESS STRUCTURES 5 SECURITIES 6 REAL ESTATE 7 INCOME AND SALES TAXES 8 IMMIGRATION 9 LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT 10 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 11 PRIVACY 11 CIVIL/COMMERCIAL LITIGATION 11 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 12 INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS © TORKIN MANES LLP 2012INTRODUCTION DOING BUSINESS IN CANADA: A LEGAL OVERVIEW 1 Canada has always been a great place for non-Canadians to do business.
Over the last few weeks, the news has been dominated by stories of struggling businesses, including Target Canada Co. (“Target Canada”) and the impending mass termination of its employees. Many of these reports have focused on the (subjectively) small“severance packages” these employees are expected to receive.
A discharge is effective whether or not the secured party intended to discharge that particular registration. That was the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,1 which left JP Morgan unsecured for $1.5 billion as a result of a paperwork mix-up. Case law in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada suggests that the decision here would be the same. Conseq