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.

“An appeal”, explained one of my law school professors as he stretched out his arms, “is like taking off in a plane. Unless you understand the rules of physics, you won’t get the plane off the ground, no matter what grade of jet fuel is in the tank.”

Court appointed receivers commonly assume control over all of a debtor’s property. In assuming that control, the receiver may collect various pieces of the debtor’s leased equipment, and include that equipment in a sale of the debtor’s assets. Further, the court order appointing the receiver will typically grant the receiver a priority charge over all such equipment for its fees, including the fees of its counsel, and any borrowings it may make in the course of the receivership.

One of the most vexing commercial insolvency issues is the competition between creditors with security on environmentally troubled property and environmental authorities looking for deep pockets to fix the environmental problems. From a creditor’s point of view, a recent Alberta decision is a potential respite from environmental obligations being imposed on creditors of the owners of environmentally troubled property.

On November 13, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lemare Lake Logging Ltd. v.

On September 18, 2015, Margaret M. Okamoto (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in The United States District Court for the District of Nevada alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”), against, inter alia, Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Mutual of Omaha Bank (“MOB”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”).  See Okamoto v. Bank of America et al., No. 2:15-cv-01800-GMN-GWF (Sept. 18, 2015).

In the bankruptcy context, effectively appealing an order confirming a debtor’s plan of reorganization is not always a sure bet, as a court may refuse to entertain the appeal in the name of equitable mootness.  Equitable mootness – “a judge-made abstention doctrine that allows a court to avoid hearing the merits of a bankruptcy appeal because implementing the requested relief would cause havoc”

Le 23 mai 2014, le juge Jean-François Émond désigne Lemieux Nolet inc. (le «Séquestre») comme séquestre de la débitrice Purgenesis Technologies inc. (la «Débitrice») et lui confère entre autres, les pouvoirs de vendre ou de disposer des actifs de la Débitrice.

Aussitôt, Monsieur Claude Moissan, syndic auprès du Séquestre, identifie les biens ainsi que les acheteurs potentiels.

Le 30 juillet 2014, un financement intérimaire est autorisé à être déboursé par Alternative Capital Group («ACG») en contrepartie duquel une charge prioritaire lui est transmise sur les actifs des débitrices Gestion Rer inc., Rer Hydro Ltd. et Hydrolienne Très Saint-Laurent Inc. (les «Débitrices»).

Peu de temps après, suite à la vérification diligente, ACG a cessé d’avancer des fonds aux Débitrices.

Le 28 août 2014, le Contrôleur met fin au mandat de ACG après avoir constaté que cette dernière n’avait alors avancé que la somme initiale de 371 000 $.

Le 17 novembre 2011, aux termes de la négociation d’une entente de cessation de vie commune, il est prévu que la demanderesse cèdera ses droits dans la résidence familiale au défendeur en contrepartie de 70 000 $ dont l’acte de vente prévoit que le paiement se fera en deux versements.

Suite à leur entente, le défendeur ne verse pas le second paiement à la défenderesse dont la créance n’est pas garantie.