In a decision rendered on August 15, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Nortel denied a motion for leave to appeal in a CCAA proceeding, reiterating the stringent test for leave to appeal in such circumstances. More importantly for our purposes, the court reiterated the necessity for a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence where the moving party seeks to rely upon such evidence.
The test for granting leave to appeal in Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act proceedings is well-settled:
In Kasten Energy Inc. v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd., 2013 ABQB 63, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench considered the application of Kasten Energy Inc. (“Kasten”) to appoint a receiver over all of the assets and undertakings of Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Shamrock”). The decision in this case presents a useful and concise summary of the applicable test for the appointment of a receiver.
The Illinois Supreme Court recently provided certainty to dissolving corporations with respect to the risk of facing a lawsuit even after it has long since dissolved. Illinois permits lawsuits against dissolved corporations for up to five years after the corporation has ceased to exist. The Supreme Court clarified that only those claims that have accrued prior to the corporation's dissolution (i.e., the injury occurred prior to dissolution) may be brought in that five-year period.
“When a business becomes insolvent, many interests are at risk. Creditors may not be able to recover their debts, investors may lose their investments and employees may lose their jobs. If the business is the sponsor of an employee pension plan, the benefits promised by the plan are not immune from that risk. The circumstances leading to these appeals show how that risk can materialize. Pension plans and creditors find themselves in a zero-sum game with not enough money to go around.
On Friday, February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Indalex Limited (Re). The ruling stemmed from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that had created commercial uncertainty for financing transactions. The primary issue for lenders was a priority dispute between a court ordered super-priority charge granted to a lender that had provided “debtor-in-possession” (DIP) financing under the Compan
The 7th Circuit has again left a disappointed creditor with no recourse because of the creditor's failure to do basic investigation or take steps to protect itself. (On Command Video Corporation vs. Samuel J. Roti, Nos. 12-1351 and 12-1430, January 14, 2013). This case follows other cases in which the 7th Circuit has shown itself decidedly unfriendly to creditors who sought compensation through the courts in failed business ventures but could have, but failed, to prevent their unfortunate situation.
The Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Indalex Limited (Re) this morning. The ruling stemmed from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that had created commercial uncertainty among many participants in the financial services, pensions and restructuring industries.
This is another post-Indalex pension deficit priority case. Due to factual differences from Indalex, however, the pension claims were largely rejected.