Good evening,

Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Good afternoon,

There were several important civil decisions released this week.

Hello:

There were only three short procedural decisions we summarized this week.

Have a good one.

John Polyzogopoulos Blaney McMurtry LLP [email protected] Tel: 416 593 2953 http://www.blaney.com/lawyers/john-polyzogopoulos

Table of Contents:

Civil Decisions:

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.

On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).

On November 17, 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, No. 16-1351 (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016) clarified the often-muddy interplay between indenture acceleration provisions and "make-whole" redemption provisions, holding that Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC and EFIH Finance Inc. (collectively, "EFIH") were unable to avoid paying lenders approximately $800 million in expected interest by voluntarily filing for bankruptcy.

Below are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Topics covered this week included a number of civil procedure issues (civil contempt, appeal routes, administrative dismissals for delay), of couple of real property/municipal law cases (dedication of roads, relief from forfeiture) and an unjust enrichment case in the context of a family dispute.

We always welcome your comments and feedback. Please feel free to share this blog with others.

Have a nice weekend.

Hello,

If you are served with a demand letter from your lender, you don’t have to fold up your tent and give in. If, like most companies, you feel that if you had more time, you could improve the situation (to the benefit of the Bank and the company), there are options. Here are 5 things that you can consider which will make it more likely that the Bank will either agree, or be forced to agree, to give you some more time to come up with a better solution.