In the matter of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") of SM Group, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision regarding compensation in CCAA proceedings. The court ruled that a creditor's right to pre-post compensation under civil or common law may be stayed by a court pursuant to sections 11 and 11.02 of the CCAA.

Dans l’affaire de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (« Lacc ») relative à Groupe SM, la Cour suprême du Canada prononce une décision sur la compensation dans le cadre de procédures en vertu de la Lacc.

In the matter of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) of Bloom Lake, the Superior Court of Québec rendered a judgment regarding the expansion of the powers of the monitor in a context where a creditor refused to produce documentation requested by the debtors.

Dans le cadre de l’affaire Bloom Lake relative à la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « Lacc »), la Cour supérieure du Québec prononce un jugement au sujet de l'élargissement des pouvoirs du contrôleur dans un contexte où un créancier refusait de produire la documentation demandée par les débitrices.

InGrayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In re Derivium Capital LLC), 716 F.3d 355 (4th Cir. 2013), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit examined whether certain securities transferred and payments made during the course of a Ponzi scheme could be avoided as fraudulent transfers under sections 544 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court upheld a judgment denying avoidance of pre-bankruptcy transfers of securities because the debtor did not have an “interest” in the securities at the time of the transfers.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.