Under Arizona law, does a secured creditor need to file a deficiency action within 90 days after a trustee’s sale to preserve the unsecured portion of its claim in a bankruptcy case? Or is filing (or amending) a proof of claim sufficient? Two recent cases out of Arizona provide conflicting answers.
Following a recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, parties may need to proceed cautiously in enforcing contractual rights and remedies in circumstances where there is a risk of the counterparty subsequently becoming insolvent.
The common law has long recognized that a contractual provision which is explicitly and directly triggered by a party’s insolvency (and which thereby causes subsequent prejudice to the rights of the insolvent party’s creditors) may be unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
Introduction
The Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers.
The Supreme Court issued one judgment this week in a case of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.
R. v. Dunn, Beatty and Gollogly 2013 ONSC 137
Introduction
US lenders in cross-border M&A transactions often ask how real estate security differs in Canada. The short answer is not much; the security and legal requirements are pretty much the same (though perhaps not as heavily negotiated and labyrinthine as US-style documentation).
You are probably aware of the useful restructuring and creditor protection process available to insolvent entities in the United States under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In Canada, more than one insolvency regime is available in respect of debtor companies in financial difficulty and those interested in acquiring such companies or their assets. However, because of its flexibility, the most commonly used Canadian regime for larger debtor companies or complicated restructurings is the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the "CCAA").
On May 18, 2012, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an opinion in Hogan v. Washington Mutual Bank, N.A., et al., CV-11-0115-PR, holding that Arizona’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes do not require the beneficiary to show the original promissory note for the trustee to notice and conclude a non-judicial trustee’s sale.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal from the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Edward Sumio Nishi v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. This appeal focuses on the test for a resulting trust in the commercial context.
When a contractor pays money into court to discharge a lien of a sub-contractor, can that money only be used to discharge that lien holder’s claim? Or is it available to pay the liens of all eventual lien holders? In Canadian Western Bank v.