Fulltext Search

Yushan Ng and Helen Ward, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here

Chris Howard, Sullivan & Cromwell

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here

The relationship of an ad hoc committee with its stakeholder constituency

No power to bind: the importance of the underlying finance documents in relation to decision making

Nick Angel, Peter Newman and Edward Rasp, Milbank LLP

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here

Role and powers

Yen Sum and Lucy Cox, Sidley Austin

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here

How many committees?

In a capital structure involving multiple external debt tranches, one of the first questions that arises is the number of committees that will be required.

Secured creditors have taken note and expressed concern regarding a recent decision from the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”), which has upended conventional wisdom regarding the priority and treatment of GST/HST arrears in a bankruptcy. In Canada v.

In a September 19, 2017 decision from the bench in the matter of Bank of Montreal v. Kappeler Masonry Corporation, et. al.1 (“Kappeler Masonry”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) confirmed that commingling of construction project receipts in a receiver’s estate account is fatal to a Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) trust claim in the face of a debtor’s bankruptcy.

In what may prove either to be a landmark decision or a mere outliner confined to its unique facts, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court of Appeal") in Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited, et al.1 has overturned an earlier decision and lifted the stay of proceedings against a court-appointed receiver to allow a union to proceed with a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the receiver.

Secured creditors should take note of Callidus,1 wherein the Federal Court (the “Court”) held that the bankruptcy of a tax debtor rendered a statutory deemed trust under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) ineffective as against a secured creditor who, prior to the bankruptcy, received proceeds from the tax debtor’s assets.

Background

In Aventura2, a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”), the Honourable Justice Penny confirmed that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the authority, pursuant to section 30(1)(k) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), to disclaim a lease on behalf of a bankrupt landlord. Rather, a trustee’s authority to disclaim a lease is limited to situations where the bankrupt is the tenant.

On October 13, 2015, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) dismissed the so-called “interest stops rule” appeal in the Nortel matter,[1] thereby confirming that the rule applies in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). The Court’s decision also appears to eliminate any suggestion that the rule only applies to so-called “liquidating” CCAA proceedings.