In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.
There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.
Lenders should be cognizant that the granting of security by a debtor may be subject to challenge as a fraudulent preference in the event the debtor subsequently files for liquidation or proposal proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”) or restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”). Such risk arises if the debtor is insolvent the time the security was granted.
In my recent blog posting, I discussed the factors that courts will consider before setting aside an elected condominium board of directors to impose a court-appointed administrator.
Below are some examples where the courts have intervened and appointed an administrator. They include situations where:
Part IV of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law with certain modifications.
Co-authored by Pamela L.J. Huff, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.
A recent decision by the Third Circuit in the Nortel Group bankruptcy reinforces the worldwide reach of the automatic stay and the narrow scope of the police power exception under section 362(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. In Nortel Networks, Inc. v. Trustee of Nortel Networks U.K. Pension Plan, No. 11-1895 (3d Cir. Dec. 29, 2011), the Third Circuit held that the automatic stay barred U.K. pension claimants from participating in U.K. proceedings meant to determine the debtors’ liability for their affiliate’s pension funding shortfalls.
In the recently released Judgment in Bank of Montreal v. Peri Formwork Systems Inc.1, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was called upon to decide whether a Monitor, under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”)2, or a Receiver, under the Builders Lien Act 3, could borrow monies to complete a development project in priority to claims of builder’s liens registered against the project.
Catalyst Paper Corporation (TSX:CTL) has taken the unusual step of publicly announcing that, although it is not in bankruptcy, the company is seeking court protection under Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code.
The Richmond, BC-based company reported earlier that it had received an initial court order under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) to begin a consensual restructuring process with its noteholders. It made the new announcement to correct allegations of bankruptcy that appeared in some media reports following its initial statement.
In a decision dated January 11, 2012, a New York court applied the “separate entity rule” to dismiss a judgment creditor’s special proceeding against a garnishee bank, confirming that the rule remains alive and well in New York. Under the separate entity rule, bank branches are treated as separate legal entities for the purposes of attachment and garnishment. Where the rule applies, a judgment creditor seeking to restrain a judgment debtor’s bank account must serve the post-judgment restraining notice upon the bank branch where the account is maintained.
On Thursday, December 1, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Re Indalex.
In the decision of Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in In the Matter of Aero Inventory (UK) Limited and Aero Inventory PLC, the Court held that proceeds of a fraudulent preference action recovered by a trustee in bankruptcy under section 95 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) may be subject to the rights of secured creditors, to the extent secured creditors had rights in the collateral in question at the time of the impugned transaction.