The Take-Away

Missing the limitations period for bringing a court action to recover a debt does not extinguish other legal rights and remedies in respect of that debt, such as bringing an application for bankruptcy or proving a claim in a bankruptcy estate.

The Case

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

The Department of Justice is changing its method of providing public notice for civil and administrative forfeitures.  The Government has traditionally published forfeiture notices in newspapers.  Instead, the Government will now post generalized notices at www.forfeiture.gov. 

In the recent decision of Frank v. Farlie, Turner & Co., LLC, 2011 ONSC 5519, Mr. Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found, among other things, that punitive damages are not available under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as such damages are inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of Ontario’s statutory secondary market disclosure liability regime.  In so doing, the court confirmed the fundamental importance of liability limits in continuous disclosure claims against directors and officers.

1. Leases Over One Year Must be Registered in all Provinces Except Québec

In recent years the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) changed the scope of its application to include all leases for a term of more than one year, regardless of whether it is a “true” or “financing” lease. This is a different rule than exists in the United States and one often missed on cross border transactions.

The Government must provide actual notice of forfeiture proceedings to those the Government knows have claimed an interest in property to be forfeited.  In a fact pattern the Sixth Circuit characterized as "befitting a John Grisham novel," the Government dug up (literally) a fraudster’s $250,000 on a golf course.  The Government found the money in October 2009 and instituted forfeiture proceedings.  In November and December 2009, the Government posted a generalized notice of forfeiture on the internet.

Cinram International Income Fund (TSX: CRW.UN), a Canadian company that is one of the world’s largest providers of multi-media products, has sought and obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The company proposes to sell its assets and businesses in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany to Najafi Companies.

Cinram International Income Fund (TSX: CRW.UN), a Canadian company that is one of the world’s largest providers of multi-media products, has agreed to sell virtually all of its assets and businesses in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Germany to Najafi Companies after obtaining creditor protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) filed an objection on June 14, 2012, in the Delaware bankruptcy court proceedings of RG Steel ("Debtor"), challenging a recent sale by RG Steel's parent entity ("Parent") of a 25-percent ownership stake in the Debtor. If the sale is respected, Parent would fall outside of the Debtor's "controlled group" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with the result that Parent may cease to have joint liability for the Debtor's unfunded pension obligations.

Where an insured has assigned away its rights to recover available insurance, the insured’s “empty shoes” do not necessarily prevent an excess carrier that pays defense costs rightfully owed by primary carriers from pursuing the primary carriers based a contractual subrogation theory.  An excess carrier proceeding on this basis typically “stands in the shoes of the insured,” obtaining only those rights held by the insured.  Nonetheless, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last week that where an excess carrier picks up the bill for an insured’s defense, it may recover fr