Il s’agit ici d’une requête en homologation d’une proposition contestée par deux importants créanciers de la débitrice, Trewern Services Ltd et Allied Properties Reit qui demandent pour leur part la nomination d’un séquestre intérimaire afin de procéder à la liquidation de l’entreprise.

Network infrastructure Inventory [N(I)2] Inc. entre sur le marché en 2003 et œuvre dans le domaine informatique. La crise financière de 2008 vient toutefois affecter l’entreprise qui se retrouve endettée d’environ 16 millions en 2012.

In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen, the Tax Court of Canada dismissed the motion brought by the Respondent under Rule 53(3)(c) of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) to quash the appeal on the basis that the Appellant, who was an undischarged bankrupt at the time of filing his Notice of Appeal, had failed to obtain permission of the trustee in bankruptcy at the outset to initiate the appeal.

Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), 2015 ONSC 2987

In Paul L. Schnier v. Her Majesty the Queen,[1]  the Tax Court of Canada (TCC) dismissed a motion to quash an appeal brought on the basis that the appellant did not, as an undischarged bankrupt, have the capacity, pursuant to Section 71 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to deal with property, including the ability to bring an appeal. The Appellant believed he was required to file the appeal, but did not obtain the trustee in bankruptcy’s permission when he commenced the appeal.

What is a Stalking Horse?

In the distressed M&A context, a stalking horse refers to a potential purchaser participating in a stalking horse auction who agrees to acquire the assets or business of an insolvent debtor as a going concern. In a stalking horse auction of an insolvent business, a preliminary bid by the stalking horse bidder is disclosed to the market and becomes the minimum bid, or floor price, that other parties can then outbid. 

TORONTO (May 15, 2015) - On May 12, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. Bankruptcy Court delivered an unprecedented joint ruling in the multi-jurisdictional dispute over the allocation of US$7.3-billion raised from the sale of the Nortel Networks global business units and patent portfolio.

At dispute was how to divide Nortel’s estate between bondholders, pensioners, suppliers and former employees of the parent company in Canada and its U.S. and European subsidiaries.

In a recent unreported decision denying approval of a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) proposed by Connacher Oil and Gas Limited, Justice C.M. Jones of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered the solvency test that corporations must meet in order to obtain a final order approving a plan of arrangement under the CBCA1.

An insolvent entity will often have one or more businesses that, once separated from the insolvent organization or cleansed of their existing liabilities, is quite attractive acquisition targets.

Around 33,000 UK-based pensioners of the Nortel group  look set to receive a greater share of the group’s $7bn worldwide assets, following a joint allocation hearing in the US and Canadian courts. This should mitigate earlier difficulties encountered in trying to use the Pensions Regulator’s anti- avoidance powers to recover monies from non-UK companies.

The decision may also have wider implications for unsecured lenders to a company which is part of a multi-jurisdictional group headquartered in the US or Canada.

WHAT WAS THE BACKGROUND TO THIS?

The biggest insolvency in national retailing history, Target stores’ Canadian subsidiary, is scheduled to take key steps on the road to resolution this month and over the summer.

Target Canada applied for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) last January 15 so that it could restructure and liquidate. It then closed all its 133 stores, eliminating the jobs of more than 14,000 employees and leaving its landlords and almost 1,800 other suppliers on the hook for close to $3 billion.