The treatment of shareholder and other equity-related claims in the context of insolvency and reorganization proceedings in Canada was initially judge-determined and the case law generally accepted the premise that shareholders were not entitled to share in the assets of an insolvent corporation until after all the ordinary creditors have been paid in full. In 2009 further clarity was brought to the issue by introduction of the “
There are a number of similarities between restructuring legislation in Canada and the United States. Each of Canada and the United States have adopted a form of the UNCITRAL Model Law Cross-Border Insolvency in order to facilitate cooperation and efficient administration of cases with an international component. In Canada this has occurred through implementation of both Part XIII of the
Individuals who serve as directors or offices of public companies in Canada face an increasing amount of shareholder litigation and a complex web of legal and regulatory provisions that must be managed, navigated and adhered to. The challenge to directors only increases when the company is insolvent, on the eve of insolvency or otherwise in some form of financial distress. If the insolvency is driven by a liquidity crisis the company may be hard-pressed to maintain day-to-day operations and preserve going concern value for stakeholder groups. Alternatively, if the pr
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”).
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 a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts have the authority to adjudicate Stern claims so long as the litigant parties provide “knowing and voluntary consent.” This decision in Wellness International Network, et. al. v. Richard Sharif provides much needed guidance as to the breadth and applicability of the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v.
In Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2015 WL 2062115 (Del. Ch.
In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, No. 14-97-bk(L), 2015 WL 727965 (2d Cir. Feb.
In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.