APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37268

Joseph Palazzo v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada

(Que.)

Civil Procedure – Appeal – Prescription

The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent from 1968 to 2009. In 1980, the Applicant began selling life insurance and investment products of the Respondent until his retirement on May 1, 2009. During his employment as a sales representative, the Applicant was paid on a commission basis only.

37026  Steven Paul Boone v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law – Offences – Elements of offence

36979  Darin Andrew Randle v. Her Majesty the Queen

(B.C.)

Criminal law – Evidence – “Mr. Big” confessions

36778   Ad Hoc Group of Bondholders v. Ernst & Young Inc. in its capacity as Monitor et al.

(ON)

Commercial law – Bankruptcy and insolvency – Interest

36728    Enmax Power Corporation, Altalink Management Ltd., in its capacity as general partner of Altalink, L.P., EPCOR Distribution & Transmission Inc. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta

- and between -

FortisAlberta Inc., Altagas Utilities Inc., ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd., ATCO Electric Ltd. v. Alberta Utilities Commission, Office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate of Alberta

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

35820     Alberta (Attorney General) v. Moloney

Constitutional law — Division of powers — Federal paramountcy — Bankruptcy and insolvency

Appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (2014 ABCA 68), affirming a decision of Moen J. (2012 ABQB 644).

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.

36238 Her Majesty the Queen v. Erin Lee MacDonald (Charter of Rights – Mandatory minimum sentences – Cruel and unusual punishment – Criminal law – Sentencing)