A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Canadian Appeals Monitor
Since our last post, the Supreme Court has released a significant trilogy of judgments involving issues of federal paramountcy and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).
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 spring of 2010, BioSyntech, a start-up biotechnology company, developing a cartilage-repair product, BST-Car Gel, filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, the intellectual property relating to the BST-Car Gel was sold.
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”
Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) took a new, creative tack in a long struggle with importers regarding application of the “deemed liquidation” statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1504, to entries subject to antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD). Importers need to be aware that CBP is now taking the dubious position that it is entitled to “reliquidate” a “deemed liquidated” entry at any time, so long as it gives notice to the importer of the “deemed liquidation” and then reliquidates the entry within 90 days after the date of the notice.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a helpful decision applying principles of discoverability to determine when a limitation period begins to run. In Roberts v. E.
Pan Canadian Mortgage Group v. 679972 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1078 (Pan Canadian), addresses the nature and priority of a purchaser’s lien, which, in general terms, is a financial charge that results when a purchaser pays a deposit toward the purchase price under a contract of purchase and sale.
The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in msi Spergel Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550 (“msi Spergel”) confirms that the Court will not suspend, extend or otherwise vary the general two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code offers a strong defense for holders of bonds, notes and other securities to preference and fraudulent transfer actions brought in bankruptcy proceedings. Essentially, any payment made to settle or complete a securities transaction, including repurchases and redemptions of bonds, notes and debentures, is protected from avoidance under the Bankruptcy Code. For many years, however, this powerful defense was rarely used. When the defense was raised, it was usually in the context of protecting payments made in leveraged buy-outs.