La Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») a clarifié la façon dont seront traitées les demandes en cas d’abus dans le cadre de procédures en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans sa décision récente concernant l’affaire Lightstream Resources Ltd.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Court) has provided clarity on how oppression claims will be adjudicated in the context of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In the recent decision in Lightstream Resources Ltd. (Re), the Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear oppression claims, but held that the exercise of this discretion is limited to appropriate circumstances.

The Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) has closed the door on the application of equitable subordination in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings. In U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

La Cour d’appel de l’Ontario (la « CAO ») a fermé la porte à l’application du principe de la subordination reconnue en equity dans le contexte des procédures instituées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans l’affaire U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

On February 29, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a decision in the ongoing insolvency proceeding of U. S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC). Two principal issues were addressed by the Court. First, whether amounts advanced by United States Steel Corporation (USS) to USSC (its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary) were properly characterized as debt obligations or “equity claims” under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA).

Le 29 février 2016, la Cour supérieure de justice de l’Ontario (la « Cour ») a rendu une décision dans le cadre de la procédure d’insolvabilité en instance d’Acier U. S. Canada Inc. (« USSC »). Dans cette affaire, la Cour s’est penchée sur deux grandes questions.

TORONTO (May 15, 2015) - On May 12, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. Bankruptcy Court delivered an unprecedented joint ruling in the multi-jurisdictional dispute over the allocation of US$7.3-billion raised from the sale of the Nortel Networks global business units and patent portfolio.

At dispute was how to divide Nortel’s estate between bondholders, pensioners, suppliers and former employees of the parent company in Canada and its U.S. and European subsidiaries.

On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally.  At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code, § 365(n), which limits a debtor's right to reject intellectual property licenses in bankruptcy and generally provides that, in the event of a rejection, the licensee may elect either to treat the license as terminated or retain its rights for the duration of the license.

On Oct. 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code - § 365(n).