Introduction
On May 14, 2012, in 9-Ball Interests Inc. v. Traditional Life Sciences Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") rendered another decision that demonstrates the importance of full disclosure and transparency in applications made to the Court.
A year after the uncertainty created in the Canadian corporate debt financing world by the Ontario Court of Appeal's pensions-friendly decision in the Indalex CCAA restructuring matter2, the Quebec Superior Court, in April 2012, determined in a lengthy and well-reasoned decision that the key restructuring and pensions law principles underpinning Indalex do not apply in Quebec when considering the treatment of defined benefit amortization payment and deficit claims in a restructuring.
A primary aim of the regulatory amendments included in UCITS IV was to facilitate the creation of more efficient structures within the UCITS framework.
The three key aspects of UCITS IV designed to assist in achieving this result are the new management company passport, provisions permitting the creation of master-feeder structures and the terms specifically enabling cross border fund mergers.
introduction
In Canada legislative authority is divided between the federal and provincial governments by subject matter. "Bankruptcy and insolvency" is a matter of federal jurisdiction, while "property and civil rights" is generally within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
Although originating from equity, declared but unpaid dividends have historically been treated as debt claims by courts in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).1 Following the coming into force of the CCAA amendments in September 2009, a fresh look at the characterization of claims as debt or equity is being undertaken.
introduction
On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the restructuring proceedings involving Indalex Limited (Indalex) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that is inconsistent with prior non-binding comments by the same court relating to the priority of certain pension claims. The decision has material implications for institutional financiers that lend against the inventory, accounts receivable or cash collateral of businesses with Ontario regulated defined benefit pension plans and for the access of those businesses to secured credit.
Introduction
Prior to 25 March 2011, there was no judicial decision in Ireland on whether the holder of a floating charge could validly improve its position in the order of priority of payments, vis-à-vis preferential creditors, in circumstances where its floating charge crystallises (i.e. converts into a fixed charge) prior to commencement of the winding up of a company.
InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.