Le 17 février 2015, Groupe Bikini Village inc. dépose un avis d’intention de faire une proposition auprès de ses créanciers conformément  à l’article 50.4 LFI.

Le 5 mars 2015, l’entreprise présente au tribunal une requête non-contestée pour émission d’une ordonnance accordant une charge administrative, une charge en faveur des dirigeants et des administrateurs et enfin une charge garantissant un plan de rétention des employés clés.

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.

On May 1, 2015, the Alberta Court of Appeal rendered its decision in 1773907 Alberta Ltd. v. Davidson, 2015 ABCA 150, and allowed an appeal permitting an action, brought in the name of an insolvent company, to proceed, notwithstanding that the company had assigned this claim to a third party. As will be discussed, the assignment of an action to a third party is often found to be caught by the doctrines of champerty and maintenance, and the decision by the Court serves to identify where such an assignment will be permitted.

The Alberta Energy Regulator’s (the “AER”) final phase of changes to the Licensee Liability Rating Program (the “LLR Program”) comes into effect on August 1, 2015. The AER’s Bulletin 2015-13 (found here) says that the implementation date was delayed from May 1 to August 1, 2015, to give licensees more time to understand the implications of, and prepare for, the Phase-3 program changes in light of current market conditions.

In May 2010, Justice Gascon of the Superior Court of Québec issued an important decision in AbitibiBowater Inc. (Arrangement relatif à)1.

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.