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.

On June 5 2008 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a plan concerning failed assetbacked commercial paper (ABCP). The restructuring called for in the plan can therefore proceed immediately, subject to any appeals from the court approval. This update is a brief survey of the key developments in the efforts to rescue the affected Canadian market for ABCP, which broke down in August 2007.

Breakdown of Market and the Montreal Accord

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.

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.

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 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.