Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

On May 17, the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require certain insured depository institutions to submit a contingent resolution plan outlining how they could be separated from their parent structures and wound down in an orderly and timely manner. Institutions with assets greater than $10 billion that are subsidiaries of a holding company with total assets of more than $100 billion would be subject to this proposal.

On April 23, the FDIC published additional Q&As on the Statement of Policy on Qualifications for Failed Bank Acquisitions (“Policy Statement”) issued in September 2009. The Q&As clarify that there is no requirement that investors must have held their ownership for a specific amount of time.

The FDIC voted to extend the safe harbor provided under 12 C.F.R. § 360.6 until September 30, 2010, from the FDIC’s ability, as conservator or receiver, to recover assets securitized or participated out by an insured depository institution. When the safe harbor was initially adopted in 2000, the FDIC provided important protections for securitizations and participations by confirming that, in the event of a bank failure, the FDIC would not try to reclaim loans transferred into such transactions so long as an accounting sale had occurred.

If you intend to enforce a judgement in Canada, you should know that the question of the US Court’s jurisdiction will likely be determined by the Canadian Court enforcing the judgement using its own test. The grounds on which the US Court took jurisdiction will carry little weight in the eyes of the Canadian enforcing Court.

introduction

This document provides a brief overview of insolvency proceedings in Canada. It outlines the Canadian legislative framework and briefly describes the receivership process, the bankruptcy regime and the formal restructuring alternatives available to debtors.

legislative framework

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its much awaited decision regarding Revenue Quebec's creative "owenership" claim over the tax portions of a bankrupt's accounts recievable.

Making a will is regarded by most individuals as a necessary irritant ranking in popularity somewhere below a visit to the dentist or doctor. Following the unprecedented instability in the global financial markets since 2007, “systemic” risk (posed by the potential failure of large or complex cross-border financial institutions) was identified by regulators and legislators as one of the key areas requiring better supervision, in order to prevent a similar crisis in the future.

With many companies going through financial trouble, there is a fear among licensees that they will lose their right to use licensed intellectual property ("IP") if the licensor becomes insolvent and wants to restructure. Up until now there has been much uncertainty in the common law as to whether an insolvent debtor may disclaim an IP licence agreement in a restructuring.

Caisse Populaire Desjardins de l’Est de Drummond v. Canada, 2009 SCC 29