In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

A limitation period is the statutory time limit set out in law for a person to file a lawsuit as a result of some loss or damage. Each Canadian province has a specific statutory framework governing limitation periods for legal matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces use a “discoverability” scheme under which a person must commence legal proceedings within two years of specific factual elements being “discovered” by the person.

An Ontario Court has provided guidance on determining a person's centre of main interests (COMI) for the purposes of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as implemented in New Zealand, in the Insolvency (Cross Border) Act 2006, and in Canada).

Under the Model Law, a "foreign main proceeding" is defined as a proceeding in the jurisdiction where the debtor has its COMI, with a presumption that a debtor company's COMI is where its registered office is.

Whether—and in what circumstances—a debtor should pay creditors a make-whole premium continues to be litigated in bankruptcy courts. Last week, as reported by Bloomberg, Judge Dorsey (Delaware) ruled that the debtor – Mallinckrodt Plc – did not need to pay a make whole premium to first lien lenders in order to reinstate such obligations under the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

On July 31, 2014, the Honourable Mr. Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the plaintiff in Indcondo Building Corporation v. Sloan (S.C.J.).

Enhancing lender priority over pension deficiencies in Canada in the post Indalex era - more guidance from the courts
Three recent cases address open issues from the 2013 Indalex decision and point the way to strategies to limit financier exposure to pension deficiency priority

When a Ponzi scheme collapses, as with musical chairs, there will be some investors with a place to sit, while others are bereft of such comfort.

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.

Indalex Limited ("Indalex") was the sponsor and administrator of two underfunded defined benefit pension plans – one for salaried employees and one for executives. The salaried plan was in the process of being wound up.

The Federal Government has announced that September 18, 2009 has been established as the coming-into-force date for most of the remaining unproclaimed amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).