Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

In our Distressed Investor Alert dated December 23, 2009, we wrote that Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, had returned to the public eye in light of the controversial revisions to Rule 2019 (“Revised Rule 2019”)1 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the "Rules Committee").

Scenario:

If you intend to enforce a judgement in Canada, you should know that the question of the US Court’s jurisdiction will likely be determined by the Canadian Court enforcing the judgement using its own test. The grounds on which the US Court took jurisdiction will carry little weight in the eyes of the Canadian enforcing Court.

Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and its affiliate and subsidiary debtors (collectively, “Lehman”) filed their proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization in their jointly administered chapter 11 proceedings on Monday, March 15, 2010 (Docket No. 7572). Monday was the last day for Lehman to file a plan pursuant to section 1121(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in order for Lehman to maintain the exclusive right to file and obtain confirmation of a plan.¹

introduction

This document provides a brief overview of insolvency proceedings in Canada. It outlines the Canadian legislative framework and briefly describes the receivership process, the bankruptcy regime and the formal restructuring alternatives available to debtors.

legislative framework

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its much awaited decision regarding Revenue Quebec's creative "owenership" claim over the tax portions of a bankrupt's accounts recievable.

Bankruptcy Rule 2019, an often ignored procedural rule in U.S. bankruptcies, has returned to the public eye with a vengeance in light of a recent ruling by the influential Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware¹ and controversial pending amendments to Rule 2019 proposed by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (the “Rules Committee”). The amendments will be the subject of a public hearing held in New York City on February 5, 2010.²

Courts are now being asked to examine transactions which were completed during the recent exuberant period. Despite the fact that the transactions in question may have been market standard at the time, because those transactions are being scrutinized during an unprecedented economic crisis, it appears that a disproportionate amount of finger pointing – and economic loss – is being directed at secured creditors. The result is a seeming erosion of secured creditors’ rights for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

With many companies going through financial trouble, there is a fear among licensees that they will lose their right to use licensed intellectual property ("IP") if the licensor becomes insolvent and wants to restructure. Up until now there has been much uncertainty in the common law as to whether an insolvent debtor may disclaim an IP licence agreement in a restructuring.