The Humber Valley Resort Corporation and related companies (collectively, “Humber Valley”) applied for, and was granted, an Initial Order from the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Trial Division) staying proceedings against it for one month under the CCAA. On this same date, the Court authorized a DIP lending facility of up to $600,000.00, with a first priority charge over various of Humber Valley’s assets. At the end of the initial stay period, Humber Valley brought two further applications.

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

A limitation period is the statutory time limit set out in law for a person to file a lawsuit as a result of some loss or damage. Each Canadian province has a specific statutory framework governing limitation periods for legal matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. Many provinces use a “discoverability” scheme under which a person must commence legal proceedings within two years of specific factual elements being “discovered” by the person.

Like any other business, law firms sometimes fail. While the failures of large law firms are well-publicized, smaller law firms can be just as or even more susceptible to failure, as the unexpected departure of the firm’s most profitable partner can be devastating to a small firm.

In early 2015, credit institutions gained the right to initiate the bankruptcy of their debtors according to a simplified procedure – i.e., without a court decision ordering the recovery of debt.

Ruling description

In its judgment of January 15, 2014, the Provincial Administrative Court (WSA) in Warsaw (case no. III SA/Wa 1928/13) ruled that a bankruptcy receiver was not required to correct input tax under the procedure set forth in Art. 89b (1) of the VAT Act (in the version which took effect on January 1, 2013) if the creditor cannot correct output tax under the “bad debt relief” procedure due to the debtor being bankrupt.

FSA has won a case in the High Court in which the court held one individual and two businesses were operating a collective investment scheme without authorisation. The court banned James Maynard from selling land for business purposes in the UK for life and made a bankruptcy order against him. It ordered him and Countrywide Land Holdings Limited to pay £31,896,194 to FSA and ordered Plateau Development & Land Limited, now in liquidation, to pay £918,975. Tracey McDermott said there was a low probability of getting meaningful compensation but that FSA had scored an important victory.

The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Third Circuit") issued an opinion on February 16, 2011 in the American Home Mortgage chapter 11 proceeding that upheld a determination by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Bankruptcy Court") on the valuation of a creditor’s claim that in connection with the termination and acceleration of a mortgage loan repurchase agreement.1 The decision is significant because the Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision that the post-acceleration market value of the mortgage loans was not a relevant m

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that bankruptcy trustees, receivers and secured creditors can continue to collect the full amount of accounts receivable of a bankrupt supplier, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component, even if an amount remains owing by the supplier to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

TrustIn Canada (Deputy Attorney General) v. Temple City Housing Inc., the Alberta Court of Appeal had to consider an application for leave to appeal a provision in a Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (“CCAA”) order granting a DIP lender a charge in priority over the claims of CRA. The claims of CRA consisted of deemed trust claims arising under sections 224(1.2), 227(4) and 227(4.1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).