Fulltext Search
Top Court Denies Leave to Appeal in Contested Application for a Reverse Vesting Order in Nemaska Restructuring Proceedings

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has denied leave to appeal in the proceedings of Nemaska Lithium Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, Nemaska) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In November 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) dismissed leave applications from the decision of the Superior Court of Québec (SCQ). In this decision, the SCQ granted, for the first time after a contested hearing, a “reverse vesting order” (RVO).

Canada, Quebec, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Debt restructuring, Supreme Court of Canada
La Cour d’appel tranche la controverse québécoise quant à l’applicabilité des exigences du CCQ à la nomination d’un séquestre au terme de l’art. 243 LFI

Dans une décision unanime rendue le 20 juillet 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec (la « CAQ ») met un terme à une controverse jurisprudentielle concernant la mise en œuvre au Québec du régime de séquestre prévu à la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (la « LFI »). La CAQ confirme qu’il est possible pour un créancier garanti d’obtenir la nomination d’un séquestre au terme de la LFI, mais que les exigences de fond et de procédure prévues au Code civil du Québec (le « C.c.Q.

Canada, Quebec, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act 1985 (Canada), Quebec Court of Appeal
Super Priority or Super Powers? FCA Rules That CRA Can Collect Unremitted GST on Proceeds of Third-Party Secured Interest

In The Toronto-Dominion Bank v Queen (2020 FCA 80), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) confirmed a Federal Court (FC) decision and ruled that a secured creditor had a statutory obligation to pay the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for a tax debt of an arm’s-length borrower because the secured creditor had received proceeds from the sale of the borrower’s property which was deemed to be held in trust by the Crown under the Excise

Canada, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Tax, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Financial Conduct Authority (UK)
Canada’s Top Court Provides Crucial Guidance on the Conduct of Insolvency Proceedings

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered its reasons today in 9354-9186 Québec inc. v Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10, after having unanimously allowed the appeals from the bench on January 9, 2020. Davies represented the principal – and successful – appellants in this matter.1

In its reasons, which were delivered by Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Moldaver, the Supreme Court laid out key principles for the conduct of insolvency proceedings (including proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act [CCAA]):

Canada, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Supreme Court of Canada
Canada’s Top Court Releases Precedent-Setting Decision on Litigation Funding and a Court’s Discretion in Restructuring Process

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v Callidus Capital Corporation unanimously overturned a unanimous decision of the Québec Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision, released on January 23, 2020, was issued from the bench with reasons to follow.

Canada, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Supreme Court of Canada
Le plus haut tribunal du Canada rend une décision qui fera jurisprudence concernant le financement des litiges et le pouvoir discrétionnaire du tribunal à l’égard du processus de restructuration

Dans une décision unanime rendue séance tenante le 23 janvier 2020 dans l’affaire 9354-9186 Québec Inc. c. Callidus Capital Corporation, la Cour suprême du Canada a infirmé une décision unanime de la Cour d’appel du Québec. Les motifs de la Cour sont à venir.

Canada, Company & Commercial, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP
Whirlpool Corporation v. HHGreg, Inc. (In re HHGregg, Inc.)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Debtor, United States bankruptcy court
In re Dickson

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

USA, Kentucky, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC
Bankruptcy opinions within a day or two of issuance from the Western and Eastern Districts of Kentucky, the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Bankruptcy, Supreme Court of the United States, United States bankruptcy court, Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit
Cox v. Specialty Vehicle Solutions, LLC

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Sixth Circuit