TORONTO (May 15, 2015) - On May 12, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. Bankruptcy Court delivered an unprecedented joint ruling in the multi-jurisdictional dispute over the allocation of US$7.3-billion raised from the sale of the Nortel Networks global business units and patent portfolio.
At dispute was how to divide Nortel’s estate between bondholders, pensioners, suppliers and former employees of the parent company in Canada and its U.S. and European subsidiaries.
Most due diligence processes in a business acquisition context require a review of material contracts and, in particular, a review of any restrictions on assignment of those contracts.
When a business enters into a long term commercial contract with a customer, the identity of that particular counterparty may influence the terms of the contract. A party deemed more favourable may obtain a better price or better terms. Unless restricted by enforceable anti-assignment provisions, these favourable contracts can be very valuable in a traditional M&A context.
Of general interest is the appeal in the case of Horton v Henry, on which we reported in our January 2015 update. In Horton, the High Court declined to follow a previous ruling, and decided that a bankrupt could not be compelled to access his pension savings to pay off creditors.
Introduction
In this Banking Reform updater we examine the single resolution mechanism (SRM), which together with the single supervisory mechanism (SSM) (Banking Reform updater 10) forms the key pillars of the EU Banking Union.
What is the SRM?
Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.
Background
Applicants who seek ex parte relief under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have an obligation to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts to the court.
The process of repossession will involve complex issues of fact and law. Each one is different depending upon the jurisdiction involved, the approach of the operator and the attitude of the relevant authorities.
Information and planning
1. What is the risk if a counter-party is located in an exiting member state?
What might be the funding risk?
A member state exit is likely to result in increased liquidity problems and less available funding as financial institutions manage their exposure to the Eurozone. Businesses may find that traditional sources of finance (loans, bonds etc) are less easy to obtain or raise.
Intra group funding may also be problematic if there are intra-company loans to subsidiaries located in risk member states and those subsidiaries are having difficulty meeting their payment obligations under such loans.
On August 19, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] (Ontario Court) released an important decision regarding the ability of unsecured bondholders to assert a claim for “post-filing” interest in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). The CCAA is Canada’s principal statute for the restructuring of large insolvent corporations and is similar in effect to Chapter 11 of theUnited States Bankruptcy Code (Bankruptcy Code).