In Toronto-Dominion Bank v Canada,1 the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) upheld the Federal Court’s decision2 that the Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) was required to pay to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) proceeds of $67,854 for unremitted GST that TD received as repayment from a borrower upon the discharge of a TD mortgage.
On May 8, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its reasons for the decision rendered in 9354-9816 Québec Inc. et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation, et al on January 23, 2020. The SCC unanimously allowed the appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal’s decision, reinstating an order allowing third-party litigation funding in insolvency proceedings.
Background
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, May 13, 2020
These are unprecedented and uncertain times. Everywhere, the COVID-19 pandemic has strained revenue streams and asset prices, shaken investor and consumer confidence, and caused overall financial conditions to deteriorate. Everyone is asking the same question: How do we deal with the financial fallout of COVID-19?
In many cases, parties are working together to overcome these financial challenges, preserve value and navigate a mutually beneficial path forward.
Having ensured, to the extent possible, the safety of their workplace and workforce, many companies are turning their mind to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. All businesses are impacted, and in many cases, the impact will be adverse, whether caused by travel restrictions, office or workforce disruptions or decreased demand.
In such turbulent times, financial institutions and their customers or borrowers may be facing significant challenges and stresses. There are signs suggesting that clients are facing financial distress and would benefit from assessing restructuring options, or that it would be time to consult with your intervention or special loans group.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland. March 02, 2020
The plaintiffs were various entities who filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in 2001. Their bankruptcy confirmation order set a bar date for the filing of claims by creditors against the entities. Nearly 16 years later, asbestos claimants filed claims for exposure to asbestos in Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs then filed suit against the asbestos claimants as an adversarial bankruptcy proceeding. Motions for summary judgment were filed by both sides.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, February 19, 2020
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit, February 18 2020
DELAWARE – The appellants are latent asbestos claimants who did not file by the bar date set by Chapter 11 bankruptcy but who were subsequently diagnosed with mesothelioma. The appellee is Energy Future Holdings Corporation (EFH), which was a holding company for several energy properties. Those subsidiaries became defunct long ago as a result of asbestos litigation. EFH also filed for bankruptcy as a result of vast sums of money owed to asbestos debtors. The reorganization plan called for a notice period to latent claimants followed by a subsequent bar date for claims.