Will this proposal capture unfunded liabilities under defined benefit pension plans?
When we began analysing in depth the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, 18 months prior to the June 2016 referendum, the HERBERT businessSMITH FREEHILLS consensus w07as very muchSECTION TITLE that Brexit was a remote prospect that either would never happen or not matter.
Fast forward just over two years and the reality could not be more different. In this updated edition of our Brexit legal guide, we take stock of the present situation, summarising the key developments since last year's vote and what is to be expected in the months ahead. 10 33 99
The “Waterford Crystal” Judgment
Introduction
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its judgment in Hogan & Others v. Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland, Attorney General [2013] CJEU Case C-398-11 on 25 April 2013.
The European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) this morning delivered its ruling in the case of Hogan and Others v Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ireland, Attorney General (the “Waterford Crystal case”). The Court held that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 EC (the “Directive”) on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.
In a long awaited landmark judgment, The European Court of Justice has today found in favour of ten former Waterford Crystal workers who alleged the Irish State had failed in their obligations to correctly implement European Directive 2008/94EC ('The Directive’) on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer.
It’s been almost two years since the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Indalex Ltd., Re.1 Currently, Canada’s lower courts are being challenged to interpret the decision in a variety of different contexts. The purpose of this article is to review the Indalex decision within the broader context of pre- and post-Indalex case law and to briefly comment on its impact in the lending marketplace.
Enhancing lender priority over pension deficiencies in Canada in the post Indalex era - more guidance from the courts
Three recent cases address open issues from the 2013 Indalex decision and point the way to strategies to limit financier exposure to pension deficiency priority
In the last few years, pension deemed trust issues have been a subject of debate before the courts.
Insolvency - 2013/14 Annual Case Update February 7, 2014 By Frank Spizzirri, Shaheen Karolia and Jonathan Tam (Student at Law) Baker & McKenzie LLP (Toronto) 2 Case Index Case Name Page # 1. The Indalex Update (Aveos/Grant Forest/Timminco) a) Aveos Fleet Performance Inc., 2013 QCCS 5762 b) Grant Forest Products Inc. v. GE Canada Leasing Services Co., 2013 ONSC 5933 c) Timminco ltée (Arrangement relatif à), 2014 QCCS 174 4 2. Re Northstar Inc. (Director Liabilities in connection with Environmental Costs) 9 3. Re Moore, 2013 ONCA 769 11 4. Re Dilollo, 2013 ONCA 550 13 5. Re Schreyer.
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its much-awaited decision in theIndalex case.1 While the central issue in Indalex was the priority of wind-up deficiencies in defined benefit pension plans versus court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing charges under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA), the SCC also considered whether claims for wind-up deficiencies are covered by deemed trusts under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA).