Antérieurement à sa faillite, la débitrice agissait à titre d’entreprise fournissant des services de « warehousing, receiving and shipping (pick and pack) ».
Après la faillite de l’entreprise survenue le 9 janvier 2014, l’un de ses anciens clients a réclamé du syndic la remise de ses inventaires.
Un torréfacteur manufacturier de café veut pétitionner en faillite son distributeur dans la région de l’Estrie. Cette procédure de faillite est assortie d’une demande pour ordonnance de sauvegarde afin que le tribunal prononce l’annulation de clauses de non-concurrence et de non-sollicitation.
La Cour supérieure du district de Québec est saisie d’une requête en homologation d’une proposition aux termes de l’article 58 de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (la « LFI »). Le tribunal précise que son rôle n’est pas de modifier le contenu du concordat qui a déjà été accepté par les créanciers mais qu’il ne peut que l’approuver ou le rejeter.
Avant de rendre sa décision, la Cour fait état de la « controverse jurisprudentielle » quant à la nécessité de signifier au préalable les préavis d’exercice du droit hypothécaire du Code civil du Québec avant d’être autorisé à procéder à une vente d’actifs en vertu de l’article 243 LFI. Trois (3) décisions en ce sens ont été rendues par la Cour du district de Saint-François à ce sujet, alors qu’une (1) décision rendue dans le district de Montréal est à l’effet contraire.
Under section 550(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a trustee or debtor in possession may recover property (or its value) that has been fraudulently transferred “from the initial transferee or the entity for whose benefit the avoided transfer was made.” While the trustee’s right to recover from an initial transferee is absolute once a transfer is deemed fraudulent, a subsequent transferee may assert affirmative defenses that could prevent recovery by the estate of an otherwise avoidable transfer. As a result, defendants in fraudulent transfer litigations often take great pains to chara
The Financial Times has reported that Towergate, a loss making insurance broker with debts of up to £1bn, may be about to breach the terms of its loans. According to these reports, a paymentis due to Towergate’s secured creditors on Monday, 2nd February 2015, and another is due to its unsecured creditors two weeks later. These payments are reported to be worth about £30m. Towergate’s board is said to be weighing up rival restructuring bids this weekend, in an effort to save the business.
We are asked from time to time to assist with the dissolution of an existing registered charity. However, often we suggest to our clients that it might be better for them to either amalgamate the existing charity into another charity or keep it in existence but inactive.
There are various reasons why charities wish to dissolve. Sometimes the problem that they were established to address has been solved. Sometimes there is no leadership left to govern or manage the charity. Other times the work once done by the charity has been taken over by another charity.
One of the primary reasons why people declare bankruptcy is that upon being discharged, the bankrupt person is released from their obligation to repay most of the debts that had existed at the time they went bankrupt. I say most because there are certain exceptions to this rule, debts that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Actitemizes as debts not released by an order of discharge.
On December 8, 2014, the American Bankruptcy Institute’s Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 issued an extensive report detailing hundreds of recommended changes to the Bankruptcy Code to address significant economic and financial developments since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code in 1978. The recommendations aim to reduce the cost of chapter 11, increase the predictability of disputes by resolving ambiguous and divergent case law, provide more flexibility for debtor in possession financing, curb the power of senior lenders, and increase protections for creditors when a