In First Southern National Bank v. Sunnyslope Housing Limited Partnership, No. 12-17241 (9th Cir. May 26, 2017), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in an en banc decision, held that, for purposes of confirmation of a plan of reorganization over a mortgagee’s objection, the value of the mortgagee’s secured claim was the value of the property as low income housing not the value the mortgagee would have received on foreclosure free of the low income housing restrictions.

The number of consumer claims filed since the Great Recession has skyrocketed. These claims include alleged violations of an “alphabet soup” of federal and state consumer protection statutes. These statutes allow prevailing plaintiffs to recover some combination of actual damages, statutory damages, and even attorney’s fees. They also present a minimal risk of liability for defense costs if the plaintiff does not prevail, which makes these types of claims enticing for plaintiffs’ attorneys.

​On April 24, 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal issued a decision in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Limited, 2017 ABCA 124. The decision is arguably the past year’s most hotly anticipated and discussed decision in Alberta, despite involving bankruptcy proceedings of a relatively small junior oil and gas company. The Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 split, upheld the trial judge’s decision that a receiver can disclaim or renounce uneconomic assets that are subject to costly environmental liabilities.

​​​The Court of Appeal of Ontario found in Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Konga that the interpretation of a guarantee is a question of mixed fact and law, entitled to deference on appeal. Further, for a guarantor to obtain a discharge from the guarantee, he must establish that the bank's demand caused the debtor's default.

The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.

​In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.

Background

In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments, Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a cure amount may include a post-default rate of interest if the underlying loan documents and applicable non-bankruptcy law provide for the payment of post-default rate interest upon a default.

From the public policy standpoint, there has been a shift towards more environmental stewardship in Canada, evidenced by heightened media attention on environmental issues and by an expanded legal framework relating to the management of environmental liabilities. For example, directors may be personally liable for violation of environmental statutes1 and may face reputational harm if the corporations they manage are found to have breached environmental rules or norms.

On December 10, 2016, the Forfeited Corporate Property Act, 2015 ("FCPA") came into force in Ontario. The FCPA has the effect of amending the Ontario Business Corporations Act ("OBCA") and the Corporations Act. There are also similar amendments made to the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act ("ONPCA"), but they have not yet come into force. The legislation effects changes to forfeiture of corporate real estate and corporate record-keeping requirements.

Does a fine imposed on a debtor by the disciplinary committee of the Chambre de la sécurité financière after the date of the debtor's bankruptcy constitute a provable claim pursuant to section 121(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA")?

Introduction