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.
The English High Court in London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 has held that legal advice taken in relation to various transactions which the claimant alleged had been made at an undervalue was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the legal advice was to structure the transactions in order to allow the client to avoid or reduce the costs of a residential care home.
Facts
The Bill introduces key changes to the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. These include a new provision allowing for an independent review by the Circuit Court, if creditors such as the mortgage lender refuse a borrower’s proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement to deal with unsustainable debts which include a mortgage on the borrower’s home.
In the Matter of J.D Brian Limited (In Liquidation) T/A East Coast Print and Publicity, In the Matter of J.D. Brian Motors Limited (In Liquidation) T/A Belgard Motors and In the Matter of East Coast Car Parts Limited (In Liquidation) and In the Matter of the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 (the Companies)
The EBA updated its Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on supervisory reporting of liquidity coverage ratios (LCR) for EU credit institutions. The updated ITS includes new templates and instructions for credit institutions so as to ensure compliance with the European Commission's Delegated Act adopted in October 2014. In addition the ITS outline all the necessary steps needed for the calculation of the ratio. The amended ITS are only applicable to credit institutions and not to investment firms and will only become applicable following publication in the EU Official Journal.
On May 1, 2015, the Alberta Court of Appeal rendered its decision in 1773907 Alberta Ltd. v. Davidson, 2015 ABCA 150, and allowed an appeal permitting an action, brought in the name of an insolvent company, to proceed, notwithstanding that the company had assigned this claim to a third party. As will be discussed, the assignment of an action to a third party is often found to be caught by the doctrines of champerty and maintenance, and the decision by the Court serves to identify where such an assignment will be permitted.
The Department of Justice and Equality has announced that the Government is to introduce legislation before the summer recess giving Courts the power to review and, where appropriate, approve insolvency deals that have been rejected by banks. This process will represent a reform of the Personal Insolvency framework and "seeks to ensure that fair and sustainable deals are upheld for struggling borrowers willing to work their way out of difficulties with a view to keeping their family home."
On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons1 to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.
Factoring is a common way for businesses to monetize current assets. Typically, in a factoring transaction, an enterprise sells its accounts receivable to a third party (commonly a bank, but not always), which, in exchange for a discount on the value of the receivables, takes on the effort and time commitment related to collecting the accounts.
The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) in 306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd.1 serves as a cautionary reminder to secured creditors that their position may not always be at the top of the insolvency food chain, even when they have taken all the proper steps to perfect their security interests.