In a recent decision arising out of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Global Industrial Technologies, Inc. (GIT),1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, held that insurance companies that had issued liability insurance policies to a manufacturer before its bankruptcy filing had standing to object to confirmation of the company’s Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, even though the plan had been designed to be “insurance neutral” with regard to the policies.
36153 Ryan Glenn Ziegler v. Her Majesty the Queen (Criminal law – Dangerous offender)
36039 Dhillon v. Jaffer (Law of professions – Barristers and solicitors – Breach of fiduciary duty – Damages)
- Historical Background
Unlike the United States, Canada was not created by a unilateral declaration of independence from the colonial occupation of England.
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED
38144 Ronald Baldovi v. Her Majesty the Queen
(Man.)
Courts – Judges – Reasonable apprehension of bias
The Court of Appeal has recently overturned a High Court decision and limited the circumstances in which an After the Event (ATE) insurance policy can be used to defeat an application for security for costs. What should claimants and defendants consider when deciding whether to offer or accept such a policy?
We recently reported on the first judgment handed down in relation to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the TP Act 2010). Hot on the heels of that decision another judgment has been delivered, this one providing guidance on the transitional provisions of the Act.
Less than a year after it came into effect on 1 August 2016, the first judgment in relation to the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the TP Act 2010) has been handed down in the case of BAE Systems Pension Fund (Trustees) Limited (the Pension Fund) v Bowmer and Kirkland Limited and others (B&K).
APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED
37323
James Chadwick Rankin, carrying on business as Rankin’s Garage & Sales v. J.J. by his Litigation Guardian, J.A.J., J.A.J., A.J.
(Ont.)
Torts — Negligence — Duty of Care — Motor vehicles
36778 Ad Hoc Group of Bondholders v. Ernst & Young Inc. in its capacity as Monitor et al.
(ON)
Commercial law – Bankruptcy and insolvency – Interest