In a recent decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) Proceedings ofTimminco Ltd. et al.[1], Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] observed that the disclaimer provisions of the CCAA apply equally in the context of a restructuring plan and a sales process.
In the recent decision in the CCAA Proceedings of Timminco Ltd. et al.[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed the CCAA Court’s jurisdiction to grant super-priority status to DIP financing charges (including over provincial deemed trusts) and, effectively, confirmed that a supervising CCAA Court has a broad discretion to do so.
The Personal Insolvency Bill published today represents a radical overhaul and modernisation of Ireland’s personal insolvency law. The Bill introduces a comprehensive and balanced regime to address personal insolvency as required by Ireland’s IMF country programme. It envisages the creation of an Insolvency Service of Ireland to oversee the legislative regime.
Introduction
A primary aim of the regulatory amendments included in UCITS IV was to facilitate the creation of more efficient structures within the UCITS framework.
The three key aspects of UCITS IV designed to assist in achieving this result are the new management company passport, provisions permitting the creation of master-feeder structures and the terms specifically enabling cross border fund mergers.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of pension deficits in the context of a restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). However, unlike past decisions, in Re Indalex the Court held that such deficits may have priority against monies advanced under interim debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing agreements authorized by a CCAA judge. This apparent departure from the conventional understanding of the priority of pension deficit claims and related issues should raise concerns for lenders, employers, and plan administrators.
Introduction
Prior to 25 March 2011, there was no judicial decision in Ireland on whether the holder of a floating charge could validly improve its position in the order of priority of payments, vis-à-vis preferential creditors, in circumstances where its floating charge crystallises (i.e. converts into a fixed charge) prior to commencement of the winding up of a company.
InJ.D. Brian Ltd (in liquidation) & Others the High Court held that, where a floating charge crystallised prior to the commencement of a winding-up, the preferential creditors still had priority pursuant to in section 285 of the Companies Act 1963 over the holder of what had become a fixed charge.
The English court of appeal has held that a company should not be held to be balance sheet insolvent on the sole basis that its liabilities (including contingent and prospective liabilities) exceed its assets.
In BNY Corporate Trustee Services v Eurosail & Ors, the Court of Appeal considered in detail, for the first time, the construction of section 123 of the UK Insolvency Act 1986, which sets out circumstances in which a company can be deemed to be unable to pay its debts.
The relevant portions of section 123 provide as follows:
In Re: Michael McLoughlin Pharmacy Ltd. The examiner sought the High Court’s approval for a scheme of arrangement which limited his liability for negligence. The secured creditor objected as a matter of principle because such limitations of liability had become commonplace in schemes. The secured creditor made it clear that there was no suggestion of any negligence by the examiner in the particular case.
The court considered: