InterTAN Canada Ltd (“InterTAN”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of US based Circuit City Store, Inc. (“Circuit City”), a consumer electronics retailer. In Canada, InterTAN operates retail stores under the trade name “The Source by Circuit City”. Prior to Circuit City's filing under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, InterTAN was a borrower under a syndicated credit facility between Circuit City, certain U.S. affiliates, InterTAN, Bank of America NA, as agent, and certain other loan parties (the “Secured Credit Facility”).

A business you are buying or selling, if reorganised for sale, may be less valuable if you do not avoid tax pitfalls. This note highlights the most common pitfalls, including those related to an insolvency. You can avoid most with planning.

Reorganisations

Many businesses will now be considering transactions involving corporate reorganisations. They might want to take advantage of market conditions to buy or be considering the sale of business units to refocus strategy. Or they might become involved in an insolvency or reconstruction.

Sultani Decrees  

Sultani Decree No. 44/2012

Ratifies an Annex to the Agreement on the Avoidance of Double Taxation between the Government of the Sultanate of Oman and the Government of the Republic of France.  

Promulgated on 27 August 2012           Effective on promulgation.

Sultani Decree No. 45/2012

Treasury is consulting on how to improve protection and payment of benefits for policyholders of insurers who get into financial difficulty. Historically, few insurers have been put into administration or liquidation, and none have been so seriously affected in the recent crisis. So Treasury thinks it is time to review the regime and suggests changes that would:

The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed the asset backed commercial paper CCAA Plan of Arrangement (2008 CaswellOnt 4811 (C.A.)). The reasoning of the Ontario Superior Court approving the Plan of Arrangement was reviewed in previous editions of this Newsletter.

Sultani Decrees  

Sultani Decree No. 43/2012

Amends some of the provisions of the Municipal Councils Law promulgated by SD 116/2011.  

Promulgated on 8 August 2012          Effective on promulgation.

Ministerial Decisions and Financial Publications  

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

Decision No. 177/2012  

In response to an imminent Order of Liquidation against the Kemper Insurance Companies, we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyholder collateral; and (v) planning a response to the Kemper liquidation.1

I. FINANCIAL REGULATION OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.

In response to the July 2, 2012 Order of Rehabilitation, and an anticipated Order of Liquidation, against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, “Lumbermens”),1 we have prepared the following “frequently asked questions” guide summarizing issues related to: (i) the financial regulation of insurance companies; (ii) the liquidation and proof of claim process in Illinois; (iii) potential recovery by policyholders of the amount of “covered” workers’ compensation claims from state guaranty associations; (iv) policyh

On 14 December 2009, the same day on which Nakheel, a Dubai World subsidiary, was due to make payment under its 2009 sukuk, the Government of Dubai announced that it had received support from the Government of Abu Dhabi and the UAE Central Bank and would pay the US$4.1 billion due. It also announced that it had secured funding of an additional US$5.9 billion to be used to meet “interest expenses and working capital [of Dubai World] through April 30, 2010 – conditioned on the company being successful in negotiating a standstill”.