Earlier this year, we wrote here about the decision in I.D.H. Diamonds NV v Embee Diamond Technologies Inc., 2017 SKQB 79, where Mr. Justice Layh held:

Affinity Credit Union 2013 v. Vortex Drilling Ltd. 2017 SKQB 228

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

National Insolvency Review, February 2017

Most or all creditors who lend to farmers will be familiar with the Farm Debt Mediation Act, S.C. 1997, c. 21 (the “FDMA”) and the need to serve a notice under the FDMA before taking action against a farmer. However, there are some details of how the FDMA operates that may not be as well-known. This piece will highlight some of those details.

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.

Although there has been much discussion of the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Marblegate, this article addresses a question other commentators have yet to tackle: namely, how the Second Circuit’s decision impacts the Trust Indenture Act’s protection of guarantee obligations included in an indenture. Below we provide our view on how Marblegate affects indenture guarantees. More specifically, we discuss how the decision is consistent with provisions of the TIA that expressly protect a noteholder’s payment rights under a guarantee.

Synopsis

Les délais sont d’une importance primordiale dans le cadre de procédures judiciaires. Le défaut de les respecter peut impliquer le rejet d’une action.

Dans l’affaire 9190-0753 Québec Inc. (Syndic de), 2016 QCCS 1983 (29-04-2016), le juge Stephen W. Hamilton a décidé de l’application de certains délais du Code de procédure civile (ou C.p.c.) en complément de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Loi ») et des Règles générales sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Règles »).

Les faits

Les délais sont d’une importance primordiale dans le cadre de procédures juridiciaires. Le défaut de les respecter peut impliquer le rejet d’une action.

Dans l’affaire 9190-0753 Québec Inc. (Syndic de), 2016 QCCS 1983 (29-04-2016) le juge Stephen W. Hamilton décide de l’application de certains délais du Code de procédure civile (ou C.p.c.) en complément des Règles générales sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (ci-après « Règles »).

Les faits