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

According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business  bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate  filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global  and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business  community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.

A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote  loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy  a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to  avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage,  they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited  two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage.  Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.

On October 28, 2013, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced that it had reached a settlement with the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace whereby those former directors and officers agreed to pay $4.75 million for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated lands owned by the now-bankrupt company. The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement at the hearing held on October 28.

After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.

Upon the filing of an appeal of a bankruptcy order, that order is stayed pursuant to section 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). In Msi Spergel v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide whether that stay suspends the limitation period applicable to a motion by a trustee to set aside a preferential payment by a bankrupt under s. 95 of the BIA.

In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.

On September 12, 2013, in the American Airlines case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (a) authorizing the debtor to use proceeds of postpetition financing to repay prepetition debt without payment of amake-whole amount, and (b) denying a creditor’s request for relief fromthe automatic stay.  

Background Facts

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.