The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.

In a succinct decision rendered on January 12, the same day as the hearing, the Supreme Court of Canada finally settled the question of whether requirements to pay, issued pursuant to section 317 of the Excise Tax Act ("ETA") prior to the bankruptcy of a tax debtor, but not paid before such time, remain valid against the garnishee.1 Supreme Court Justice LeBel, speaking on behalf of the Court, simply stated that the Court agreed with the reasons of Noël J.A. of the Federal Court of Appeal.

A U.S. bankruptcy judge in Delaware has held that the two-year "look-back" period in which a transfer occurring within two years of the bankruptcy petition filing date may be avoided, under Section 548 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, cannot be equitably tolled. After some inconsistent orders about whether the courts may broaden the look-back period, this decision should give greater certainty to lenders when evaluating their exposure upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case by a borrower.

In Re Indalex Limited, the OCA surprised insolvency, pension and financial services professionals by ruling that pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over the claims of DIP lenders in the context of Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal yesterday in Indalex Limited (Re). This is an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal (2011 ONCA 265). Please see our Financial Services and Banking E-news Bulletin dated April 25, 2011, for a detailed summary of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon, owners of the New York Mets baseball team, invested in Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Irving Picard, the trustee appointed under the Securities Investor Protection Act to liquidate the business of Madoff and Madoff Securities, sought to recover over $1 billion from Katz and Wilpon on the grounds that they had made money from Madoff through fraud, constructive fraud and preferential transfers in violation of federal bankruptcy law and New York debtor-creditor law.

What happens when Canadian entities are part of a corporate group with international operations that seeks to restructure? A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Re Massachusetts Elephant & Castle Group, Inc. provides guidance on how Canadian courts will consider recognition of foreign restructuring proceedings.

Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense?  What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”

The Indalex decision, released by the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year, gave priority to pension plan members over other secured creditors that had advanced funds to keep Indalex from bankruptcy.  This case came as a surprise to many practitioners and may have far-reaching implications for pension plan administrators and creditors alike.&nbs