The enforcement of court orders that are designed to preserve, trace or track crypto-assets within North America is often limited in practice. As seen in the recent Ontario decision of Cicada 137 LLC v. Medjedovic (“Cicada”),[1] mechanisms by which legal enforcement principles can be effectively applied against stolen or misappropriated crypto-assets are constrained.
In what can only be described as a bitter pill to swallow for the professionals involved, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in Duca Financial Services Credit Union Ltd. v.
On July 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) released its decision in Hutchingame Growth Capital Corporation v.
On July 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) released its decision in Hutchingame Growth Capital Corporation v.
Einde aan overdrachts- en verpandingsverboden om het kredietpotentieel van het bedrijfsleven te vergroten
Inleiding en huidig recht
On 26 May 2020, the Act on the confirmation of private restructuring plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was adopted by the Dutch parliamentary House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer). The Dutch Senate (Eerste Kamer) will now have the final vote. Parliamentary consultations in the Dutch Senate will take place on 9 June 2020.
On March 26, 2020, leave to appeal the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Alberta CA”) in Canada v. Canada North Group Inc.1 (“Canada North Group”) was granted by the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”).2 No reasons were given.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread closures and suspension of operations, including within the justice system in Ontario. Ontario courts have issued a number of notices detailing the changes to regular court operations. In an effort to simplify the complicated situation already facing insolvency practitioners and their clients, we have summarized the current status of court operations germane to bankruptcy and insolvency matters.
Superior Court of Justice
Op 17 maart jl. nam de regering uitzonderlijke maatregelen om de economische gevolgen van de corona uitbraak het hoofd te bieden. Met noodmaatregelen probeert de regering ondernemingen overeind te houden. Het blijft onzeker of die maatregelen voldoende financiële ruimte geven om de salarissen en schuldeisers (op termijn) te betalen. We bespreken daarom in deze bijdrage een uiterste redmiddel: de wettelijke procedure van surseance van betaling.
Surseance van betaling (uitstel van betaling)
On March 6, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Bodanis (“Bodanis”),1 holding that two debtors, each having an estate exceeding $10,000 in value, had appeals of their bankruptcy orders as of right under section 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act2(the “BIA”) and thus did not need to seek leave to appeal.
Section 193 reads as follows: