On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].1 In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.
As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank
One of the most vexing commercial insolvency issues is the competition between creditors with security on environmentally troubled property and environmental authorities looking for deep pockets to fix the environmental problems. From a creditor’s point of view, a recent Alberta decision is a potential respite from environmental obligations being imposed on creditors of the owners of environmentally troubled property.
In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.
On November 13, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Lemare Lake Logging Ltd. v.
November 2015 Financial Services Bulletin The Supreme Court of Canada Confirmed Today the Paramountcy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act over License Denial Regimes The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released today its much awaited decision in 407 ETR,1 in which it upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and ruled that Section 22(4) of the Highway 407 Act is constitutionally inoperative to the extent that it is used to enforce a provable claim that has been discharged pursuant to section 178(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
On October 13, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the "Court of Appeal") upheld1 a CCAA judge's decision that the "interest stops rule" applies in CCAA proceedings, which significantly limits unsecured creditors' ability to recover interest accrued after the date of a debtor's insolvency.
Background
Le 23 mai 2014, le juge Jean-François Émond désigne Lemieux Nolet inc. (le «Séquestre») comme séquestre de la débitrice Purgenesis Technologies inc. (la «Débitrice») et lui confère entre autres, les pouvoirs de vendre ou de disposer des actifs de la Débitrice.
Aussitôt, Monsieur Claude Moissan, syndic auprès du Séquestre, identifie les biens ainsi que les acheteurs potentiels.
Le 30 juillet 2014, un financement intérimaire est autorisé à être déboursé par Alternative Capital Group («ACG») en contrepartie duquel une charge prioritaire lui est transmise sur les actifs des débitrices Gestion Rer inc., Rer Hydro Ltd. et Hydrolienne Très Saint-Laurent Inc. (les «Débitrices»).
Peu de temps après, suite à la vérification diligente, ACG a cessé d’avancer des fonds aux Débitrices.
Le 28 août 2014, le Contrôleur met fin au mandat de ACG après avoir constaté que cette dernière n’avait alors avancé que la somme initiale de 371 000 $.
Le 17 novembre 2011, aux termes de la négociation d’une entente de cessation de vie commune, il est prévu que la demanderesse cèdera ses droits dans la résidence familiale au défendeur en contrepartie de 70 000 $ dont l’acte de vente prévoit que le paiement se fera en deux versements.
Suite à leur entente, le défendeur ne verse pas le second paiement à la défenderesse dont la créance n’est pas garantie.