The treatment of shareholder and other equity-related claims in the context of insolvency and reorganization proceedings in Canada was initially judge-determined and the case law generally accepted the premise that shareholders were not entitled to share in the assets of an insolvent corporation until after all the ordinary creditors have been paid in full.  In 2009 further clarity was brought to the issue by introduction of the “

There are a number of similarities between restructuring legislation in Canada and the United States.  Each of Canada and the United States have adopted a form of the UNCITRAL Model Law Cross-Border Insolvency in order to facilitate cooperation and efficient administration of cases with an international component.  In Canada this has occurred through implementation of both Part XIII of the 

Individuals who serve as directors or offices of public companies in Canada face an increasing amount of shareholder litigation and a complex web of legal and regulatory provisions that must be  managed, navigated and adhered to.  The challenge to directors only increases when the company is insolvent, on the eve of insolvency or otherwise in some form of financial distress.  If the insolvency is driven by a liquidity crisis the company may be hard-pressed to maintain day-to-day operations and preserve going concern value for stakeholder groups.  Alternatively, if the pr

A Commentary on Recent Legal Developments by the Canadian Appeals Monitor

Since our last post, the Supreme Court has released a significant trilogy of judgments involving issues of federal paramountcy and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).

In the spring of 2010, BioSyntech, a start-up biotechnology company, developing a cartilage-repair product, BST-Car Gel, filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In the subsequent bankruptcy proceedings, the intellectual property relating to the BST-Car Gel was sold.

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several questions that have confounded courts and lawyers for three years. Last week, the Supreme Court issued its first follow-up ruling, answering some of those questions and clarifying how bankruptcy courts are to handle so-called Stern claims. Despite that guidance, the opinion leaves several important questions unanswered.

As expected (and predicted), the bankruptcy judge in Dallas, Texas granted Mt. Gox’s request for an order of “recognition” that the debtor’s Tokyo insolvency action was a “foreign main proceeding.” She will also allow Mt. Gox’s bankruptcy trustee, Nobuaki Kobayahsi, to act as the “foreign representative” of the debtor in connection with whatever relief it might seek in the Chapter 15 case.

On June 18, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas will consider whether to grant recognition to the insolvency case pending in Tokyo. Based on the pleadings filed last week, it is a virtual certainty that the court will enter an order granting recognition.

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.

On May 21, the bankruptcy trustee for Mt. Gox advised depositors that the bankruptcy case in Tokyo was proceeding.  The information contained in the email was limited in scope, guarded and of little use in understanding the trustee’s view of how the bankruptcy ultimately may resolve.