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.
The Act of 30 June 2021 has extended the possibility for Luxembourg-based companies to hold virtual board and shareholder meetings until 31 December 2021.
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.
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
Given the present coronavirus outbreak, it is of the utmost importance for lenders and borrowers alike to diagnose correctly the risks and challenges ahead for their business. Indeed, the present crisis is not merely about liquidity but much more about solvency as it will affect the real economy first.
With the spread of the virus, there is an acute risk of financial difficulties leading to default and bankruptcies in sectors most vulnerable to the virus, including maritime and air transport, retail, tourism, insurance and entertainment.
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:
On December 30, 2019, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (the “NLSC”) released its decision in Re Norcon Marine Services Ltd.1 (“Norcon Marine”), dismissing both an application by a debtor for continuance of its Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act2 (“BIA”) proposal proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act3 (“CCAA”) and a competing application by a secured creditor for the appointment of a receiver.