Au cours des deux dernières années, les ordonnances de dévolution inversée (« ODI ») sont passées de concept inaperçu à l’outil de choix dans de nombreuses restructurations complexes menées en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Comme les spécialistes en restructuration recourent de plus en plus aux ODI, la question se pose : les ODI remplaceront-elles les plans traditionnels pris en vertu de la LACC?

In the past two years, reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) have gone from obscurity to being the tool of choice in many complex restructurings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). As restructuring practitioners increasingly employ RVOs, it begs the question: Will RVOs replace traditional CCAA plans?

On April 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.), Case No. 19-2240 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a 2017 law that substantially increased the quarterly fees debtors are required to pay to the Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”) in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

In its recent decision in Atlas (Brampton) Limited Partnership v. Canada Grace Park Ltd., 2021 ONCA 221, the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) clarified the requirements for foreclosure on investment property under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the PPSA).

On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.¹ The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu

Cryptocurrency has been recognized as “property” for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Re Quadriga Fintech Solutions Corp. et al.,^[1]the first Canadian case of its kind.

A year ago, many predicted that the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines and their impact on the economy would result in a deluge of bankruptcy filings that could rival the Great Recession of 2008-2009. However, as we approach the one-year anniversary of former President Trump declaring the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus a national emergency, that prediction has not come to pass.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, __ U.S. __, 2021 WL 125106 (Jan. 14, 2021), which addresses issues related to the automatic stay and a creditor’s ability to retain property of a debtor’s estate upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case. The Fulton decision is a consolidation of four similar cases where the City of Chicago impounded debtor cars pre-petition in response to unpaid traffic tickets and fines. After filing for bankruptcy, each debtor requested that the City return the respective vehicles.

Summary

This significant recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms (i) that a CCAA supervising judge enjoys broad discretion and the necessary jurisdiction to prevent a creditor from voting on a plan of arrangement when the creditor is acting for an improper purpose, and (ii) that litigation funding is not intrinsically illegal and that a litigation funding agreement can be approved by the Court as an interim financing in insolvency.