Since at least the Delaware Supreme Court’s 2007 landmark decision in N. Am. Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, 930 A.2d 92, 101 (Del.

The unitranche financing market has expanded significantly in recent years. Generally, a unitranche deal involves two lenders (or groups of lenders) that provide financing on a “first out” and “last out” basis. In conjunction with the financing, the borrower grants one lien and enters into a single credit agreement and the lenders enter into an “Agreement Among Lenders” (“AAL”). An AAL is similar to an intercreditor agreement and provides for certain rights and remedies of the lenders.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a helpful decision applying principles of discoverability to determine when a limitation period begins to run. In Roberts v. E.

The recent case of APCOA Parking1 has set a precedent by allowing yet more non-English incorporated debtors to implement financial and corporate restructurings using English schemes of arrangement.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code limits the ability of a trustee or debtor-in-possession to avoid as a constructive fraudulent transfer or preferential transfer a transaction in which the challenged settlement payment was made through a stockbroker or a financial institution.1 Because of the broad protection granted by section 546(e) – the so-called “safe harbor” provision – parties structuring a leveraged buyout (“LBO”) or similar transaction often ensure that settlement funds flow through one of the listed institutions to inoculate the beneficiaries from a later challenge as a constr

Pan Canadian Mortgage Group v. 679972 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1078 (Pan Canadian), addresses the nature and priority of a purchaser’s lien, which, in general terms, is a financial charge that results when a purchaser pays a deposit toward the purchase price under a contract of purchase and sale.

In Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities) v.

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in msi Spergel Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550 (“msi Spergel”) confirms that the Court will not suspend, extend or otherwise vary the general two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.

I. Introduction

On 21 June 2013 Italy issued a new emergency decree (Law Decree No. 69 of 21 June 2013, which entered into force on 22 June – the "2013 Decree") introducing a number of provisions aimed at fostering the economy and attracting foreign investments.¹

Certain provisions of the 2013 Decree amend the Bankruptcy Act² by introducing rules aimed at avoiding abuses and increasing transparency.