In Re Sino-Forest Corporation¹, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation of “equity claims” employed by Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List).

As the prospects for business survival become ever tougher due to challenging economic conditions, administrators and liquidators are increasingly finding themselves having to justify to the courts whether or not costs should be treated as an expense of the administration or liquidation.

Sums incurred or paid as an expense of an administration or liquidation are, unlike debts incurred before the appointment of the administrator or liquidator, paid in preference to unsecured debts and also before the administrator or liquidator's fees and expenses.

Prior to the 2009 amendments (the “Amendments”) to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”),¹  courts exercising jurisdiction under that statute could, in the appropriate circumstances, approve “roll up” debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing arrangements.  While it can take different forms, in essence, a “roll up” DIP loan facility is an arrangement whereby an existing lender refinances or repays its pre-filing loan by way of borrowings under the new DIP loan facility.  The priority status of the charge granted by the court to secure the DIP

There have been a number of first instance decisions concerning the construction and effect of Section 2 (a) (iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement. The problem has been the conflicts between the various judgments, and in particular, with respect to the interpretation and effect of Section 2 (a) (iii). This has led to uncertainly as to how the Section is intended to operate.

Today, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) published Final Notices for Christchurch Investment Management Limited (Christchurch) and the firm's compliance officer, David Thornberry, for breaches of the FSA's client money rules (CASS rules).

In the Kitchener Frame Ltd¹ decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) confirmed that third-party releases in proposals made under the BIA² are permitted. In doing so, the Court relied on the principle that the BIA and CCAA³ ought to be read and interpreted, harmoniously. Finally, the Court sanctioned a consolidated proposal on the basis it met the requirements set out in section 59(2) of the BIA.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) has confirmed that historical environmental remediation obligations will not automatically take priority over the claims of other creditors in an insolvency, even where those obligations are framed in the form of regulatory orders.

We have seen an increasing number of pre-packs over recent years, how does a pre-pack work?

On August 18, 2011, Mr. Justice Morawetz, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, released an important decision in regard to preference actions in the matter of Tucker v. Aero Inventory (UK) Limited (together with Aero Inventory plc, Aero).

Background

Shareholder claims and corporate bankruptcies are on the rise.