Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

On October 13, 2009, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Florida issued an opinion invalidating, under U.S. fraudulent conveyance law, guaranties and security interests given by certain subsidiaries to secure the $200 million first lien and $300 million second lien credit facilities made to the subsidiaries’ parent corporation, TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc., 2009 WL 3519403, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009).

Background

Caisse Populaire Desjardins de l’Est de Drummond v. Canada, 2009 SCC 29

TD Bank v. Dunn-Rite Cattle Corp. [2009] A.W.L.D. 2075; 2009 ABQB 227 (Alta. Q.B.), on hearing of issue from (2006) 26 C.B.R. (5th) 1 (Alta. C.A.)

The master granted TD priority to the subject cattle ahead of the Dunns’ lien pursuant to the since repealed Livery Stable Keepers Act. The Dunns appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal and because of sparse evidence, directed the matter of priority be heard by the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Caisse populaire Desjardins de l’Est de Drummond v. Canada, 2009 SCC 29 (Can LII) (S.C.C.); on appeal from 2006 FCA 366 (Can LII)

The Caisse granted Camvrac a line of credit of up to $297,000. Camvrac deposited $200,000 with the Caisse subject to a “Security Given Through Savings” agreement (the “Savings Agreement”) and agreed:

(i) to have the $200,000 on deposit as long as the line of credit was outstanding; and

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently ruled on a case1 dealing with the priority of claims to the bank accounts of a petroleum operator which had gone into receivership, where the operatorship was governed by the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure. The operator had failed to pay to the non-operators revenues of approximately $300,000, having only $58,000 left in the commingled account. The Operating Procedure imposes a trust on the production revenues but also expressly allows intermingling of these funds with the operator's general funds.

1117387 Ontario Inc., by court order in October 2003, was placed under receivership for defaulting on payment of a mortgage. In October 2008, the Court was asked to approve the receiver’s third report and the proposed sale of the mortgaged lands. A complicating factor was that the mortgaged lands were subject to environmental contamination as a result of a neighbouring oil and gas facility.

In these trying times for our economy and our financial system, every business leader should pay attention to the company’s needs for working capital for the year and prepare for any potential problem related to its lack of liquidities.

Radius Credit Union Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada [2009] S.J. No. 148, 2009 SKCA 36, on appeal from
2007 SKQB 472

1992: Farmer Wayne Hingtgen (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Radius
Credit Union Limited (“CU”) granting a security interest on all his present and after
acquired assets.