A recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) brought to the fore the role of fairness opinions in solvent arrangement transactions. In Re ChampionIron Mines Limited (Champion) the court approved the arrangement but deemed the fairness opinion inadmissible on the basis that it failed to disclose the reasons underlying its conclusion.

The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).

In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11

A Summary

In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.

The impending abolishment of the ancient common law self-help remedy of distress will affect landlords, tenants and insolvency practitioners.

What is Distress?

The ability of landlords to recover arrears of rent without going to Court, by instructing bailiffs to seize, impound and sell certain goods located at the premises and belonging to the tenant. This right will remain until 6 April 2014, but after that date distress will no longer be available and commercial landlords will instead have to rely on Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (“CRAR”).

According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.

The Insolvency Service have recently reported that they are planning to launch proposals to simplify and re-order the existing Insolvency Rules, replacing them with a single set of rules fit for the 21st century. The present rules have been in force since 1986, providing a framework for the Insolvency Act 1986.

Mr. Justice Popplewell recently dismissed the lawsuit filed by liquidators of Madoff Securities International Ltd after a lengthy trial in the High Court through which they were seeking to recover around $50 million. The ruling exonerated the UK defendants including former Bank Medici AG Chairwoman Sonja Kohn and the Directors of Bernard Madoff’s European organisation, including his children Mark and Andrew.

On October 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two significant decisions1 on the interplay between provincial environmental remediation and federal insolvency orders. The cases are of interest to environmental and insolvency lawyers across Canada. They are equally of interest to taxpayers who foot remediation costs shifted through insolvency.

Background

A new Statement of Insolvency Practice relating to pre-packaged sales in Administration has been issued and has effect from 1 November 2013.

This provides for earlier notification to creditors of the sale and the justification for it and provides a more extensive list of information that must be included.

The main changes are:

An “Administration Charge” under the CCAA

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (“CCAA”) permits a court having jurisdiction over proceedings for the restructuring of an insolvent company to make certain orders, to secure payment of the fees of certain officials involved in those proceedings, including the Monitor of the insolvent company appointed for the restructuring proceeding.

A surprising judgment re the “Administration Charge”