A recent decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench1 has raised some questions about purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) proceeds and cross-collateralization of assets secured by these types of security interests. It has been suggested that this decision is unique and establishes that using a PMSI as collateral for other indebtedness of the debtor is dangerous. But is this decision really so radical?
Facts:
When a financing statement is registered to perfect a security interest in collateral, it is the responsibility of the secured party to monitor the registration to ensure that a new financing statement is filed if the goods move jurisdictions. A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice1 emphasizes this point.
Facts
A discharge is effective whether or not the secured party intended to discharge that particular registration. That was the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,1 which left JP Morgan unsecured for $1.5 billion as a result of a paperwork mix-up. Case law in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada suggests that the decision here would be the same. Consequently, lawyer
- 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".
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
On October 28th, 2013 the Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”) and the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace Canada (“Northstar”) reached a $4.75 million settlement for the remediation of a property owned by Northstar in Cambridge, Ontario.
In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognised the English law schemes of arrangement of the Syncreon group under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (“CCAA“). This was the first time a Canadian court was asked to determine whether proceedings under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act“) could be recognised as “foreign proceedings” under Part IV of the CCAA.
On September 18, 2017, the iconic US-based retailer Toys “R” Us filed for Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in front of Judge Keith L. Phillips. The company filed twenty-five entities, explaining that its $5.3 billion debt obligations and operational issues had led to the need for reorganization.
The recent Court of Appeal case involving Topland Limited and Smiths News Trading Limited was a salutary lesson about the strict rules that protect guarantors and the perils of forgetting them. The facts of the case were relatively simple: Topland owned a commercial property, leased to the rather aptly named Payless DIY Ltd, which became insolvent. Topland brought a claim against the tenant’s guarantor, Smiths, for arrears of over £280,000 and required them to take a new lease for the remainder of the term.
What you need to know
The entry of the Cape Town Convention into force under Canadian law is a positive step, but has led to a legislative “black hole” in the protection provided to certain aviation creditors, bringing with it considerable uncertainty and potentially expensive ramifications.
The Cape Town Convention in Canada