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.
On February 2 and 9, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court released two decisions in the ongoing proceedings of Timminco Limited and Bécancour Silicon Inc. (together, the Timminco Entities) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that further develop the law regarding pension claim priorities in insolvency proceedings.
In the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto-Dominion Bank and Her Majesty the Queen (2012 SCC 1), the Supreme Court succinctly agreed with the reasons of Justice Noël of the Federal Court of Appeal.
In January and February of 2012, Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released two decisions1 in which he authorized a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing charge, an administration charge, and a directors and officers (“D&O”) charge ranking ahead of, among other claims, possible pension deemed trusts over the objection of the debtor companies’ unions and on notice to the members of the companies’ pension administration committees.
Arctic Glacier Income Fund (CSNX:AG.UN) (the “Fund”) has obtained creditor protection from the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench to allow its subsidiaries to continue normal operations as the Fund seeks new investors.
The Arctic Glacier Income Fund is an unincorporated, open-end mutual fund trust. The Fund's head office is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Arctic Glacier's operating subsidiaries manufacture and distribute packaged ice products in Canada and United States.
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.