In Royal Bank of Canada v. Casselman, three motions were brought before the Court. First, a continuation of a motion for approval and directions brought by the receiver. Second, a motion to allow counsel for the debtor to withdraw as lawyer of record. Third, a motion by the Sexton Group Ltd.
The Ontario Court of Appeal released its much anticipated decision on the appeals taken from the trial decision of Justice McEwen in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP et al.
In the recent unreported decision, Bank of Nova Scotia et al v. Virginia Hills Oil Corp. et al, File No. 1701-02184, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench held that not all municipal property tax claims are priority secured claims in an insolvency.
This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), holding that a debt collector does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding. This case should stem the tide of FDCPA lawsuits against debt collectors for efforts to collect potentially time-barred debts in bankruptcy proceedings.
On May 15, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) in which it held that filing an “obviously time-barred” proof of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
On April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124. The decision is arguably the past year’s most hotly anticipated and discussed decision in Alberta, despite involving bankruptcy proceedings of a relatively small junior oil and gas company. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 split, upheld the trial judge’s decision that a receiver can disclaim or renounce uneconomic assets that are subject to costly environmental liabilities.
The Court of Appeal of Ontario found in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Konga that the interpretation of a guarantee is a question of mixed fact and law, entitled to deference on appeal. Further, for a guarantor to obtain a discharge from the guarantee, he must establish that the bank's demand caused the debtor's default.
The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.
In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.
Background
The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a Chapter 11 debtor could not avoid the payment of default interest under a promissory note as a condition to curing and reinstating such promissory note under a Chapter 11 plan. In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that its prior rule of allowing a curing debtor to avoid a contractual post-default interest rate in a loan agreement—as decided in Great Western Bank & Trust v.