The Supreme Court of Canada's ("SCC") recent decision in Peace River Hydro Partners v.
It is common for construction project owners to finance projects through multiple mortgages, especially in times of rising construction costs. However, when an insolvency situation arises, holdback priority claims from contractors and subcontractors are particularly complex when there are multiple building mortgages involved. The Ontario Superior Court (Commercial List) provided new clarity in this regard in its April 29, 2022 decision in BCIMC Construction Fund Corp. et al.
Understanding limitation periods are of crucial importance in the construction industry, particularly when a contractor is faced with unpaid invoices for services or materials rendered. The Ontario Court of Appeal stepped back into the spotlight in this regard with its decision in Thermal Exchange Service Inc. v Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1289, 2022 ONCA 186, in holding that a defendant's assurances may prolong the "discoverability" of a claim for non-payment.
Background
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the CAA), which President Trump signed into law on December 27, 2020, amends several provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. While a number of the amendments are applicable only to small businesses (e.g., businesses eligible to file under the new small-business subchapter of the Bankruptcy Code and/or businesses eligible to receive PPP loans), several others have more general application, as discussed below.
* * *
Amendments of More General Application
In a decision released on March 11, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided reassurance for those in the construction industry of the effectiveness of section 9(1) of the Construction Act, RSO c C.30 (“CA”) in insolvency proceedings. This decision did not overturn the previous decision rendered in Re Veltri Metal Products Co (2005), 48 CLR (3d) 161 (Ont CA) (“Veltri”); rather, the Court of Appeal distinguished the two cases on the facts.
In the United States, in a typical plain vanilla lending arrangement, if a counterparty files for bankruptcy, an automatic stay of enforcement actions is imposed that would prevent a lender from (i) foreclosing on the property of the debtor, (ii) terminating contracts with the debtor, (iii) commencing or continuing certain enforcement actions against the debtor or its property and/or (iv) setting off amounts owed under such arrangements (in each case unless a motion is filed and granted in the related bankruptcy case).
In In re KB Toys Inc.,1 the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the holdings of the lower courts that claims subject to disallowance under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code are “similarly disallowable in the hands of the subsequent transferee.” According to the Third Circuit, when a creditor owes property to the estate, until that property is returned to the estate, that creditor’s claim, regardless of who holds it, is impaired, and the subsequent sale of that c
On May 4, 2012, the Delaware bankruptcy court inIn re KB Toys, Inc., et al. (KB Toys), handed down a thoughtful decision addressing the issue of whether impairments attach to a claim or remain with its seller. The KB Toys court held that “a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant. Disabilities attach to and travel with the claim.”