In terms of Section 153 (1)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, a creditor who votes against the adoption of a business rescue plan runs the risk of having their claim purchased by another party at a value of what the creditor would have received on liquidation of the company. In the terms of the bankruptcy laws of the United States of America this procedure is referred to as a "cram down" which is imposed on creditors in business rescue situations.
It is common practice to find directors of a company standing surety for the company in order to secure its debts. The consequence could be severe for the sureties, because if the company is unable to pay its debt, the creditor can take legal action against the directors or other third parties in their capacity as sureties, unless the company pays its debts and the sureties are released from liability.
In his recent decision inRoyal Bank of Canada v.Atlas Block Co. Limited, 2014 ONSC 3062 (“Atlas Block”), Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) held that trust claims pursuant to section 8 of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) do not survive the bankruptcy of the would-be trustee debtor.
- 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".
In recent years, manufacturers and lessors of heavy industrial equipment have installed sophisticated systems into their units which require a computer code be entered in order for the equipment to operate. This computer code may need to be updated or changed periodically. If the purchaser or lessee is in arrears in making payment to the manufacturer or lessor, the manufacturer or lessor may refuse to supply the debtor with the new access code. In effect, the manufacturer or lessor has the ability to remotely render the equipment unusable.
Following a recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, parties may need to proceed cautiously in enforcing contractual rights and remedies in circumstances where there is a risk of the counterparty subsequently becoming insolvent.
The common law has long recognized that a contractual provision which is explicitly and directly triggered by a party’s insolvency (and which thereby causes subsequent prejudice to the rights of the insolvent party’s creditors) may be unenforceable as a matter of public policy.
October 30, 2012 - The UK Supreme Court has released a decision that significantly impacts cross-border insolvency proceedings: Rubin v. Eurofinance SA and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation v. A E Grant [2012] UKSC 46.
Whether a lease is a “true” or “finance” lease has been debated in Canadian courts for decades in many different contexts. The consequences of the categorization of a lease can have a material impact on the recovery that a lessor may have in an insolvency of its lessee. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently released its decision in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. Cow Harbour Ltd. and 1134252 Alberta Ltd. (“Cow Harbour”) on January 23, 2012.
When a company winds up, begins restructuring proceedings or goes bankrupt, a debtor or creditor may be able to cancel out the amount payable to the other party by using the remedy of “set‐off”. Set‐off involves the cancelling of crossliabilities between two parties who owe each other money. It is a valuable tool that can increase a creditor’s percentage of recovery and decrease the debt burden of a debtor.
Types of Set‐off: Contractual, Legal or Equitable
2001 ONCA 265 (Released 7 April, 2011)
Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act – Pensions – Priorities – Fiduciary Obligations – Funding Pension Plans