In a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), a judge has discretionary powers to, among other things, order debtor companies into bankruptcy and thereby resolve priority disputes. What should be the standard of review of such discretionary decisions? Historically, the standard has been high.
Nortel Networks Corporation (Re), 2015 ONSC 2987
Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Blaneys on Business Bulletin: June 2015
The courts in Ontario and Delaware have decided who is to be paid what from the more than $7.1 billion available to meet creditors’ claims in the Nortel Networks insolvency, closing the 120-year-old book on Canada’s first global research, development and technology enterprise.
In Akagi v. Synergy Group (2000) Inc. (“Akagi“), the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside a series of ex parte orders made by Toronto’s Commercial List Court granting broad investigative powers to a court-appointed receiver.
What is a Stalking Horse?
In the distressed M&A context, a stalking horse refers to a potential purchaser participating in a stalking horse auction who agrees to acquire the assets or business of an insolvent debtor as a going concern. In a stalking horse auction of an insolvent business, a preliminary bid by the stalking horse bidder is disclosed to the market and becomes the minimum bid, or floor price, that other parties can then outbid.
TORONTO (May 15, 2015) - On May 12, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. Bankruptcy Court delivered an unprecedented joint ruling in the multi-jurisdictional dispute over the allocation of US$7.3-billion raised from the sale of the Nortel Networks global business units and patent portfolio.
At dispute was how to divide Nortel’s estate between bondholders, pensioners, suppliers and former employees of the parent company in Canada and its U.S. and European subsidiaries.
On June 6, 2014, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) released additional reasons1 to his decision in Romspen Investment Corp. v. 6711162 Canada Inc., 2014 ONSC 2781, centred on the cost submissions made by counsel to Romspen Investment Corp. (“Romspen”). Despite a contractual provision in a mortgage agreement that gave the applicant, Romspen, a right to full indemnity costs from the respondents, Justice Brown found that the legal fees incurred by counsel to Romspen were unreasonable.
This article has been contributed by Martin Desrosiers and Julien Morissette, partner and associate respectively, in the Insolvency & Restructuring Group of
Over the last few weeks, the news has been dominated by stories of struggling businesses, including Target Canada Co. (“Target Canada”) and the impending mass termination of its employees. Many of these reports have focused on the (subjectively) small“severance packages” these employees are expected to receive.
This article has been contributed to the blog by Joshua Hurwitz, an Associate of the Insolvency & Restructuring group at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt and Jaime Auron, an Articling Student at Osle