Financiers and lenders to Canadian companies have become increasingly concerned about potential priorities of pension claims in Canada over the past year following the 1 February 2013 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in the Indalex case (Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6). Much of this concern may have been caused by conjecture as to how the SCC's decision would be applied in future insolvency proceedings, rather than the relatively narrow issue that was actually before the SCC in Indalex.
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada denied a group of investors leave to appeal the approval of a settlement releasing Ernst & Young LLP from any claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation. The settlement is part of Sino-Forest’s Plan of Compromise and Reorganization following a bankruptcy triggered by allegations of corporate fraud.
The Settlement
Norton Rose Fulbright’s Employment and Labour Team in Montréal raised a preliminary objection against an arbitrator’s jurisdiction on the basis of orders rendered pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA“), which was upheld and led to the dismissal of the grievance.
- INTRODUCTION
S4 of the PPSA, provides that "except as otherwise provided" in the PPSA, the PPSA does not apply to a number of enumerated liens, charges or other interests, including as set out in s4(a) "a lien, charge or other interest given by an Act or rule of law in force in Alberta".
On March 13, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed applications for leave to appeal by a group of alleged former institutional shareholders of Sino-Forest Corporation. These institutions unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal from orders approving Sino-Forest’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) plan and approving a settlement reached between Ernst & Young and the plaintiff group that was awarded carriage of Sino-Forest class actions in Ontario.
Recent Developments
In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11
A Summary
In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.
Insolvency - 2013/14 Annual Case Update February 7, 2014 By Frank Spizzirri, Shaheen Karolia and Jonathan Tam (Student at Law) Baker & McKenzie LLP (Toronto) 2 Case Index Case Name Page # 1. The Indalex Update (Aveos/Grant Forest/Timminco) a) Aveos Fleet Performance Inc., 2013 QCCS 5762 b) Grant Forest Products Inc. v. GE Canada Leasing Services Co., 2013 ONSC 5933 c) Timminco ltée (Arrangement relatif à), 2014 QCCS 174 4 2. Re Northstar Inc. (Director Liabilities in connection with Environmental Costs) 9 3. Re Moore, 2013 ONCA 769 11 4. Re Dilollo, 2013 ONCA 550 13 5. Re Schreyer.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal will consider an interesting insolvency case involving hog feed suppliers who claim of priority for the cost of feed over Farm Credit Canada and Bank of Montreal, the hog producer’s secured creditors.
In general, the Court found Suppliers may have an unjust enrichment claim arising from an alleged fraud on the part of producer, who allegedly ordered feed while preparing for the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) application with no intention of paying for the feed.
DOING BUSINESS IN ALBERTA
November 2013
© Davis LLP 2013 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
B. GOVERNMENT AND LEGAL SYSTEM ......................................................................................... 1
C. TYPES OF BUSINESS ORGANIZATION ....................................................................................... 2