In his decision in Global Royalties Limited v. Brook, Chief Justice Strathy of the Ontario Court of Appeal explained that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) does not provide a bankrupt with a right to appeal an order lifting a stay of proceedings against him. Despite there being a multi-party bankruptcy, he rejected the submission that “the order or decision is likely to affect other cases of a similar nature in the bankruptcy proceedings”.
Introduction
In Walchuk Estate v. Houghton, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to quash an appeal on the basis that the lower court’s adjournment of a contempt motion was a final order. The decision also provides guidance, yet again, on the proper test for distinguishing between final and interlocutory orders.
Background
The media have been paying considerable attention to the current financial distress of the energy industry in Alberta, focusing primarily on the impact a company’s financial condition can have on its stakeholders, including its employees, shareholders and creditors. But there is another group that is also being affected: counterparties to commercial arrangements with insolvent companies. Increasingly, financially strong companies are having to deal with insolvent joint venture partners, financially distressed operators, and bankrupt lessees.
As a general rule, lodging an appeal against a judgment no longer suspends its enforceability. This should accelerate the recovery of outstanding debt in Belgium.
Recovering outstanding debt in Belgium can feel like a long-winded and sometimes frustrating job. A creditor who obtained a judgment against a defaulting debtor is often confronted with an appeal by that debtor, lodged with the only intention to put the enforcement of this judgment on a back burner. Most courts of appeal built up a large backlog as a result of the massive workload of among others these dilatory appeals.
Ruim zes jaar na het faillissement van het Meavita-concern heeft de Ondernemingskamer zich op 2 november jl. in harde bewoordingen uitgelaten over het handelen van bestuur en toezichthouders. De uitspraak volgt op een door de vakbonden en curatoren gestarte enquêteprocedure, waarin het beleid en de gang van zaken binnen Meavita voorafgaand aan faillissement zijn onderzocht.
Quoted October 2015 - Edition 105 Current issues relating to accounting law, article 403 liability and insolvency law 2 In this edition • Introducion • Financial reporting • Article 403 liability • Facilitating reorganisations of businesses: Dutch pre-packs and schemes 3 Fourth Directive (78/660/EEC) and the Seventh Directive (83/349/EEC) in relation to individual and consolidated accounts, and Directive 2013/50/EU, which amends a number of the provisions of the Prospectus Directive (2003/71/EC) and the Transparency Directive (2004/109/ EC). 1.
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.