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.

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.

In Re Norame Inc. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303(Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal was again called upon to consider various issues of importance to insolvency practitioners. In a decision released on April 28, 2008, Mr. Justice LaForme delivered the judgment for the Court of Appeal and in so doing dismissed the appeal of Paddon + Yorke Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Norame Inc. (the "Trustee").

In the recent decision of Re WorkGroup Designs Inc.,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "BIA") which relate to valuing and determining the claims of secured creditors in proposal proceedings under the BIA.

Background

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("AP Inc.") and Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. ("APC Inc.") (collectively, the "Applicants") brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court under the CCAA concurrently with a United States Chapter 11 proceeding brought by affiliated entities. the Applicants. desired a managed liquidation process.

The Applicants entered into three stalking horse agreements for approximately $240 million. This compared to the secured claim of $275 million of the major secured creditors of the Applicants.

In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 (Dynex) affirmed that gross overriding royalty interests (GOR) could constitute interest in land provided the parties so intended and that intention was sufficiently evidenced in an agreement.

Urbancorp Inc., a large real estate development company involved in various projects in the Greater Toronto Area, became subject to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") in April of 2016. Alan Saskin, Urbancorp's President and primary shareholder, filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal (the "NOI") in his personal capacity under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") shortly thereafter.