Fulltext Search

In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor's assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an ex­amination under oath be­fore a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:

(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;

(b) the debtor's income and property;

(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;

(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;

The Polish metal tools manufacturer, Bison Bial (Bison), will be able to receive state aid amounting to €8.2m in order to enable the company to carry out a restructuring programme to improve the firm’s economic viability. After Bison entered into financial difficulties, Poland notified the European Commission that it wanted to provide aid to the company. The Commission decided that such aid was compatible with EU state aid rules, provided that the investment programme is fully implemented and the company sells one of its production divisions by the end of 2009.

Courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.

However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that it could adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“Act”).

Should Lenders be Concerned?

In the United States, claims for “deepening insolvency” have been advanced against lenders and investment bankers to insolvent companies as well as against the officers and directors of insolvent companies. Experience suggests that developments in U.S. commercial laws tend to be imported north of the border.1 Accordingly, lenders should be aware of the existence of the theory of deepening insolvency and the risk of creditors attempting to use it in Canada.

What is Deepening Insolvency?

The Powerhouse CVA, which sought to strip away guarantees provided by the parent company to landlords of Powerhouse, has been struck down as unfairly prejudicial by the High Court. However, certain aspects of the judgement remain unclear and could be subject to future appeal…

BACKGROUND TO THE POWERHOUSE CVA

Powerhouse (an electrical retailer) proposed a CVA on 1 February 2006 with the intention of closing 35 of its stores (the Closed Premises).

The German Government is required by the European Commission ("Commission") to seek repayment of €5.2 million in aid from the bicycle group, Biria. The aid comprised two guarantees and “silent participation” (investor received remuneration but no shares) by a public investment company and the German Land of Saxony to subsidiaries within the Biria group. Although Germany argued that the “silent participation” was provided upon market conditions, the Commission did not accept that it met the private market investor test.