Fulltext Search
Vous pouvez obtenir ce que vous avez négocié ou non : une ordonnance de mise sous séquestre écarte une clause d’arbitrage dans l’affaire Mundo Media

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.

Canada, Arbitration & ADR, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
You (may not) get what you bargained for: a receivership order displaces an arbitration clause in Mundo Media

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.

Canada, Global, Arbitration & ADR, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Supreme Court of Canada, British Columbia Court of Appeal
Court of Appeals Holds Bankruptcy Law Does Not Preempt Lender’s Tortious Interference Claims Against Third-Party Non-Debtors

1In Sutton 58 Associates LLC v.

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Supreme Court of Canada releases reasons for its decision in Bluberi: Improper purpose and litigation funding in CCAA proceedings

Introduction

On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its written reasons in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp.[1](the Bluberi case).

Canada, Ontario, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, Due diligence, Coronavirus
New York Amends Its Fraudulent Conveyance Law by Enacting the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act

Last month, New York enacted the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”)[1], which seeks to modernize the state’s fraudulent conveyance law.

Since its introduction by the Uniform Law Commission in 2014, the UVTA has now been adopted by 21 states.[2] The UVTA was originally drafted by the Uniform Law Commission as an amendment to the 1984 Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”); New York was one of only seven states that did not adopt the original UFTA.[3]

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Commercial Division Declines to Use New York Debtor and Creditor Law to Enjoin a Defendant’s Asset Sale Without Evidence of Inadequate Consideration

In Del Forte USA, Inc. v. Blue Beverage Group, Inc. et al., No. 518454/2016, 2017 BL 253248 (Sup. Ct. Jul. 17, 2017), New York Commercial Division Justice Sylvia G. Ash denied plaintiff Del Forte’s preliminary injunction motion that sought, pursuant to N.Y.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Breach of contract, Preliminary injunction
Commercial Division Declines to Use New York Debtor and Creditor Law to Enjoin a Defendant’s Asset Sale Without Evidence of Inadequate Consideration

In Del Forte USA, Inc. v. Blue Beverage Group, Inc. et al., No. 518454/2016, 2017 BL 253248 (Sup. Ct. Jul. 17, 2017), New York Commercial Division Justice Sylvia G. Ash denied plaintiff Del Forte’s preliminary injunction motion that sought, pursuant to N.Y.

USA, New York, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP