Action for return of premiums paid of key man insurance policies dismissed.

[2011] O.J. No. 3387

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

M.A. Penny J.

January 21, 2011

The appellant insurer sought leave to appeal the order of the Chambers Judge who dismissed it’s application to be added as a party or intervener in an underlying liability action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

[2011] B.C.J. No. 1336

2011 BCCA 326

British Columbia Court of Appeal (In Bankruptcy and Insolvency)

P.A. Kirkpatrick J.A. (In Chambers)

July 8, 2011

Are the directors of a corporation which has been placed into receivership entitled to retain counsel on behalf of the corporation without prior approval of the Receiver or the court?

According to a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the answer is “Yes”.

Adananc

On February 28, 2011, Adanac Molybdenum Corporation announced that it successfully implemented its plan of compromise and arrangement and emerged from CCAA protection. It was announced that, on implementation, Adanac’s outstanding common shares were consolidated on a 150 to 1 basis with 24,698,888 post-consolidation common shares issued to creditors.

Adanac owns the Ruby Creek Project, located in northwest British Columbia.

Ambrilia Biopharma

A recent Alberta appellate decision establishes that a trustee in bankruptcy may sell a franchise agreement to a third party, in spite of objections by the franchisor, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd v Welcome Ford Sales Ltd contains three important messages for franchisors:

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

Insolvent companies with under-funded employee pension plans that want to borrow money to keep operating and ultimately return to profitability may find it tougher to find new financing as a result of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

The Court ruled on April 7 that Indalex Limited (and certain affiliated companies), the second largest aluminum extrusion company in North America, which administered two pension plans, one for employees and the other for executives, was obliged to pay its pension

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

A nominee director of a corporation appointed by one of its creditors may encounter risk of liability where that creditor is engaged with the corporation in efforts to restructure its debt. Steps can be taken to minimize the risk of such liability.

Nominee Directors in Canada