In Re Proex Logistics, 2025 ONSC 51, Justice Steele of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) recently made a number of holdings related to the process for trustees accepting claims in a bankruptcy and other parties seeking to challenge those decisions. The Court held that:
Historically, a GP’s source of liquidity was self-generated. Whether through management fees or house carry, sources of cash for a sponsor came from within the sponsor’s structure. This, not surprisingly, places inherent limitations on the manager’s ability to grow the business, facilitate succession planning and achieve other strategic objectives.
On July 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada provided clarity regarding the treatment of administrative monetary penalties and disgorgement orders resulting from securities violations in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission).
As we enter 2025, we look back on five important decisions that made the news in 2024. Here is the the first case.
IE CA 3 Holdings Ltd and IE CA 4 Holdings Ltd (Companies) were two Canadian registered companies whose directors were located outside of Canada. The Companies’ parent company, Iris Energy Limited (Iris), was listed on NASDAQ and had its registered office in Melbourne and principal place of business in Sydney, with three of its six directors located in New South Wales.
Contents Introduction 1 Misplaced Restructuring Stigma 2 Rebranding Corporate Reorganization 3 Insolvency Data for First Half of 2024: Highlights 4 Geographic Data Breakdown 10 Final Thoughts 15 Key Contacts 16 The information in this publication should not be relied upon as legal advice. We encourage you to contact us directly with any specific questions. © 2024 Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP. All rights reserved.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Should a corporation be affixed with the fraudulent or other nefarious intent of its directing minds? The answer to this question is of key importance in several contexts where the “intent” of the corporation leads to specific legal consequences.
One of the main advantages for a debtor to seek protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) or the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is the stay of proceedings that prevents creditors faced with a default in payment from taking any action against the debtor. This allows the debtor, among other things, to reorganize itself or dispose of some or all of its assets under the court’s supervision. Be that as it may, there are exceptions.
Insolvency & Restructuring Bulletin
A recent court decision has provided clarity on the application of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) to former employees of companies undergoing restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The central issue was whether WEPPA applies to employees who were terminated as a result of a reverse vesting order (“RVO”).
Background