1. Ex ParteOrders

There are a number of ethical issues facing lawyers today in bankruptcy and insolvency litigation. One of the main issues is the level of disclosure in ex parte applications, such as those for a stay of proceedings in order to file a proposal under the BIA or a plan under theCCAA.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court rejected a bankrupt music composer’s argument that a security interest the composer had granted in royalty based distributions should be ineffective following his bankruptcy.

On November 25, LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc. (“LandAmerica”) filed a Chapter 11 petition in Virginia, seeking bankruptcy protection. By separate agreement (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), LandAmerica agreed to sell Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth”) to Chicago Title Insurance Company (“Chicago Title”) and Lawyers Title Insurance Company (“Lawyers”) and United Capital Title Insurance Company (“United”) to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company (“Fidelity”).

In late December 2014, Russia adopted major changes to its insolvency (bankruptcy) law. Critically, the changes introduced the long-awaited regulation of individual insolvency (personal bankruptcy), with the aim of closing the regulatory gap and supporting individual debtors struggling during Russia's economic downturn.1 Some time has passed since the initial draft law on individual insolvency (personal bankruptcy) was first delivered to the Russian Parliament back in 2012.

Recovery of legal costs in insolvency proceedings can be a difficult procedure, as the ability of counsel to claim costs depends on the work performed, the timing of the work, and for whom the work was done.

In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for court approval of the Bidding Procedures pertaining to the sale of Nortel’s “Layer 4-7” business, as well as approval of a “Stalking Horse” bidding process.

Prior to filing for protection under the CCAA, Nortel decided that the Layer 4-7 business should be sold. Shortly after filing, Nortel agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Radware for the purchase of the Layer 4-7 business (the “Purchase Agreement”).

In Re Farmpure Seeds Inc. (2008 CarswellSask. 639) the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench considered the proposal of a debtor which was conditional upon the Court approving DIP financing and a super priority charge.

The debtor company had an active business, however became insolvent as a result of rapid expansion and some improvident contracts. The debtor could not meet its immediate obligations such as payroll, and the need to pay its suppliers upon receipt of their seed product. As a result, the debtor could not maintain its business without immediate interim financing.

Law No.  176-V "On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy" came into effect on 25 March 2014.

The Law "On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy" (Law) has replaced the Law “On Bankruptcy” dated 21 January 1997. The law applies to legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. As with its predecessor, the Law does not apply to state owned entities, pension funds, banks, and insurance companies (for which special provision is made in the relevant legislation). 

As compared with the previous law, the Law focuses more on rehabilitation procedure.

Introduction

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last month in Century Services Inc. v. Canada1 is of striking interest to the tax and insolvency bars. The Court considered Crown priorities, in particular, the various “deemed trust” provisions found in section 227 of the Income Tax Act (Canada),2 section 86 of the Employment Insurance Act,3 section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”)4 and in particular section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (GST Portions).5

Magna Enterprises Corp. (“MEC”), a foreign bankrupt corporation, brought an application for ancillary relief pursuant to s. 18.6 of the CCAA. Section 18.6 gives the court the power to “make such orders and grant such relief as it considers appropriate to facilitate, approve or implement arrangements that will result in a co-ordination of proceedings under this Act with any foreign proceeding”.