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

Pocas veces una legislación “moderna” (recordemos que el texto original de la Ley Concursal es de 2003) ha sido objeto de tanta modificación (en sus diez años de vigencia lleva más de 16 modificaciones). Lo que es seguro es que no será la última, de hecho en las próximas semanas verá la luz la Ley por la que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial (procedente del Real Decreto-ley 4/2014, de 7 de marzo), un auténtico ejemplo de “reforma de la reforma”.

1.- Antecedentes

1. Introducción

Entre las medidas de refinanciación de las empresas con problemas de solvencia o liquidez que ha previsto el Real Decreto-ley 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, destacan los estímulos para incentivar la conversión en capital (acciones o participaciones) de la deuda financiera, cuyos costes a menudo lastran la supervivencia de la empresa.

El Real Decreto-ley 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial, ha modificado el régimen de la Ley Concursal en lo relativo a los acuerdos de refinanciación.

Si bien podría decirse que la práctica totalidad de la reforma se refiere de una u otra forma a ellos, el núcleo de la regulación, el que define los requisitos que han de cumplir este tipo de acuerdos para quedar protegidos frente a las acciones de reintegración concursales, ha quedado localizado en el artículo 71 bis.

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

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.

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.