In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek 7 where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.
In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.
There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.
Many describe the United States as Canada's most important trade partner. Cross-border insolvency proceedings between the two jurisdictions are frequent and the recognition by one country's court of the other's bankruptcy orders is an important tool in facilitating the restructuring of companies with operations that spread across North America. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal (leave to appeal of which was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada) invites us to reflect on the delicate balance between comity for foreign orders and Canada's sovereignty over domestic laws.
In 7636156 Canada Inc. (Re)[1], the Ontario Court of Appeal ("OCA") confirmed the right of a commercial landlord to draw on a letter of credit given as security pursuant to a lease, even when the draw takes place after the termination of the lease by the tenant's trustee in bankruptcy.
In the case of 1842752 Ontario Inc. v. Fortress Wismer 3-2011 Ltd.[1](the "Fortress Case"), the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a judgment creditor is not entitled to enforce a writ of seizure and sale against a registered owner that beneficially holds land in trust for a judgment debtor, nor to priority over arm's length construction financing.
I am tempted to draft a blog post listing the top ten ironies of bankruptcy law. There is no shortage of contenders for that list, and vying for the top spot would be the simple fact that you need a lot of money to go bankrupt. Bankruptcy (or its cousins, creditors arrangement and administration -- but not receivership, the economies of which could also feature in a blog post of its own) involves an influx of lawyers, accountants, and other professionals who negotiate and bicker their way through the company’s balance sheet, all while charging by the hour.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision inSun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, has a number of implications for employers, pension plan administrators, as well as both secured and unsecured creditors.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the case of Re Indalex Ltd. [2013] SCC 6 (the “Decision”) does not, as one national newspaper put it place “creditors before pensioners”. The Decision which overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Indalex Ltd. [2011] O.J. No.
The Ontario Court of Appeal (Court) recently affirmed the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Nortel Networks Corporation (Re) (Nortel),[1] that the “interest stops” rule applies in proceedings under the
The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal today in what is one of the most highly-anticipated cases for the pension and insolvency bars pending before the courts. In Indalex (Re) 2013 SCC 6, the court provided clarity regarding some key questions relating to the governance of an employer-administered pension plan during a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The judges split on some of the issues, but here is our brief round-up: