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 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.

In het faillissement geldt een verlicht ontslagregime. Daarmee zijn faillissementsprocedures aantrekkelijk voor ondernemers om hun personeelsbestand te saneren. De vraag is echter of de faillissementsaangifte hiervoor mag worden gebruikt. In dit artikel zal worden ingegaan op het inzetten van het faillissementsrecht om de arbeidsrechtelijke bescherming van werknemers te omzeilen. Wanneer is sprake van misbruik van de eigen faillissementsaangifte?

Recente zaak: faillissement van een schoenenhandel

The test for granting leave to appeal in Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act proceedings is well-settled:

In geval van faillissement zijn er vaak meerdere schuldeisers tussen wie de overgebleven gelden moeten worden verdeeld. Daarbij is het van belang of een vordering als boedelschuld of als concurrente vordering wordt aangemerkt. Schuldeisers met een boedelvordering hebben voorrang op concurrente schuldeisers en krijgen vaak een groter deel van hun vordering vergoed. Het is voor een schuldeiser dus van belang dat een vordering als boedelvordering wordt aangemerkt.

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.  

In the October 2012 Newsflash, we informed you about the notion of “successive terms of employment” and the consequences associated herewith. We discussed the Dutch Supreme Court’s recent Van Tuinen decision, in which the Court limited the doctrine of successive terms of employment after insolvency by following the case law pertaining to the probationary 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 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.