In 7636156 Canada Inc. v. OMERS Realty Corporation1 (“7636156 v. OMERS”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) held that a bankrupt’s landlord was only entitled to have drawn down on a letter of credit by an amount equal to the landlord’s priority claim for three months’ accelerated rent, rather than by the full amount of the letter of credit, and ordered that the landlord pay over the excess to the bankrupt’s trustee.
As we reported last week, on November 1, 2019, amendments to both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)
In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognised the English law schemes of arrangement of the Syncreon group under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (“CCAA“). This was the first time a Canadian court was asked to determine whether proceedings under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act“) could be recognised as “foreign proceedings” under Part IV of the CCAA.
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.
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.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently reviewed the indicia of a sham trust in McGoey (Re).
Gerald McGoey, an undischarged bankrupt, and his wife, Kathryn McGoey, claimed to be holding two properties in trust for their children. The Trustee in Bankruptcy brought a motion to have the properties declared assets of the Estate of Gerald McGoey, subject to realization for the benefit of his creditors.
A recent decision of Justice Watt of the Ontario Court of Appeal definitively answers the question of which appeal procedure must be followed in appeals of Orders made in proceedings constituted under both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Courts of Justice Act (the “CJA”). Justice Watt’s decision in Business Development Bank of Canada v. Astoria Organic Matters Ltd.
On June 26, 2018, Regional Senior Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted an order approving a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), in respect of Concordia International Corp.