Should a corporation be affixed with the fraudulent or other nefarious intent of its directing minds? The answer to this question is of key importance in several contexts where the “intent” of the corporation leads to specific legal consequences.
L’arbitrage est un mode consensuel de résolution des différends qui permet aux parties de personnaliser leur processus et même de choisir leur propre décideur. L’insolvabilité est le scénario diamétralement opposé, dans lequel les différends concernant le débiteur sont involontairement regroupés devant un seul tribunal d’insolvabilité.
Arbitration is a consensual method of dispute resolution in which the parties can customize their process and even select their own decision-maker. Insolvency is the diametrically opposite scenario, where disputes involving the debtor are involuntarily consolidated before a single insolvency court.
In Chandos Construction Ltd. v Deloitte Restructuring Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the application of the common law anti-deprivation rule in the context of a Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) proceeding.
In Re Crystallex, 2012 ONCA 404, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld unusually broad DIP financing arrangements granted pursuant to section 11.2 of the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) despite the vociferous objections of substantially all of Crystallex’s creditors. By dismissing the appeal, the Court endorsed the supervising CCAA judge’s approval of:
In Re Crystallex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) unanimously upheld three orders of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) that (1) authorized bridge financing, (2) authorized interim financing
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that prematurity redemptions of commercial paper made by Enron Corp. shortly before it filed for bankruptcy were protected from avoidance by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s safe harbor for securities transaction settlement payments. In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. Alfa., No. 09-5122-bk (2d Cir. June 28, 2011). In so doing, the Second Circuit resolved a clash between the Bankruptcy Code’s interest in avoiding preferential debt repayment and the securities industry’s interest in preserving transaction finality.