On June 1, 2013, British Columbia's new Limitation Act (the "New Act")¹ came into force, changing the limitation periods for filing civil lawsuits in British Columbia.

The highly anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Indalex was released this morning.

Here are the key highlights:

On July 6, 2012, in Lightsquared LP (Re),¹ the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Court"), released reasons that clarify the criteria for the identification of the centre of main interest ("COMI") of an applicant seeking recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings as "Foreign Main Proceedings" pursuant to Section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA").²

introduction

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently reviewed the considerations to be applied on an application by a secured creditor to lift a stay of proceedings granted in an initial order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). In Re Azure Dynamics Corp.,¹ Madam Justice Fitzpatrick confirmed that the classic "doomed to fail" argument will not be persuasive where the applicant creditor is not prejudiced, and where the objectives of the CCAA are best served, by allowing the stay of proceedings to continue.

background

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.

The Government has announced that it will be delaying the proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA") and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of insolvency proceedings, until 2015.

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.

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu