In the recent case of Re Masonite International Inc., the Ontario Superior Court approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), notwithstanding that certain insolvent entities were involved. This was a short but complex cross-border restructuring which commenced and was principally completed prior to the recent Canadian insolvency legislation amendments coming into force.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court rejected a bankrupt music composer’s argument that a security interest the composer had granted in royalty based distributions should be ineffective following his bankruptcy.

In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for court approval of the Bidding Procedures pertaining to the sale of Nortel’s “Layer 4-7” business, as well as approval of a “Stalking Horse” bidding process.

Prior to filing for protection under the CCAA, Nortel decided that the Layer 4-7 business should be sold. Shortly after filing, Nortel agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Radware for the purchase of the Layer 4-7 business (the “Purchase Agreement”).

An Ontario Court recently confirmed that an execution creditor does not have priority over the unsecured creditors of a debtor upon the insolvency of the debtor even if the judgment creditor is then holding funds of the debtor which it has garnisheed.

In February 2008, the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario granted Cotton Ginny Inc., CG Operations Limited ("H/O"), CG Operations I Limited and CG Operations II Limited, protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

The U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination (as now set out in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) allows a U.S. court to subordinate all or part of a creditor's claim to the claims of other creditors if the creditor has engaged in inequitable conduct that gives the creditor an unfair advantage or is injurious to the other creditors. Will the Canadian courts apply the doctrine?

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.

Whether—and in what circumstances—a debtor should pay creditors a make-whole premium continues to be litigated in bankruptcy courts. Last week, as reported by Bloomberg, Judge Dorsey (Delaware) ruled that the debtor – Mallinckrodt Plc – did not need to pay a make whole premium to first lien lenders in order to reinstate such obligations under the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

In 2014, we reported on the Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s decision in Indcondo Building Corporation v. Sloan (“Indcondo“), which strengthened the position of plaintiffs seeking to set aside fraudulent conveyances in Ontario. In the Indcondo case, Mr.

In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.