In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a judge has discretionary powers to, among other things, order debtor companies into bankruptcy and thereby resolve priority disputes. What should be the standard of review of such discretionary decisions? Historically, the standard has been high.

Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 271 (Indalex), creditors and their advisors have been closely following jurisprudence which considers the scope of the decision.

In his November 20, 2014 decision in CanaSea PetroGas Group Holdings Limited (Re), Sharpe J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal did not accept the respondents’ submissions that he should decline to hear an application for leave to appeal a CCAA decision because only a three-judge panel should hear such an application.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has denied certiorari to petitioners alleging that Aaroma Holdings LLC is liable for personal injury claims stemming from the use of diacetyl by Emoral Inc., which declared bankruptcy in 2011 after Aaroma bought its assets in 2010. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings LLC, No. 14-71 (U.S., cert. denied November 3, 2014). The petitioners had argued that freeing Aaroma from liability would create a loophole for companies looking to avoid tort liability by encouraging them to sell assets before filing for bankruptcy.

A divided Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel has reversed a district court ruling dismissing a shareholder’s lawsuit against individuals and a liquidating trustee involved in the dissolution of a biotechnology company and the liquidation of its assets. Schmidt v. Skolas, No. 13-3750 (3d Cir., decided October 17, 2014).

The test for an extension of time to serve and file a late Notice of Appeal in Ontario is well-established in the case law:

In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014).

A trustee has filed a motion requesting court approval of a bankruptcy plan that would require New England Compounding Pharmacy owners and executives to establish a $100-million settlement fund for the benefit of creditors and individuals allegedly harmed by a 2012 fungal meningitis outbreak linked to the company’s steroid injections. In re New Eng. Compounding Pharm., Inc., No. 12-19882 (Bankr. D. Mass., motion filed May 6, 2014).

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada denied a group of investors leave to appeal the approval of a settlement releasing Ernst & Young LLP from any claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation. The settlement is part of Sino-Forest’s Plan of Compromise and Reorganization following a bankruptcy triggered by allegations of corporate fraud.

The Settlement

A settlement has reportedly been reached among litigants in multi district litigation proceedings involving the bankrupt New England Compounding Center (NECC) and its insurers and creditors, including those who allegedly contracted fungal meningitis linked to the compounding pharmacy’s tainted injectable steroid products.