Shareholders often overlook the need to properly document loan advances in their haste to provide funds to the company, without being aware of the significant consequences that can result.
This is another post-Indalex pension deficit priority case. Due to factual differences from Indalex, however, the pension claims were largely rejected.
In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.
In Re Sino-Forest Corporation1, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation of “equity claims” employed by Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List).
This bulletin is a cross-country update presented by the national Restructuring & Insolvency Group. It discusses the key cases across the country involving debtor-inpossession (DIP) financing, court-ordered charges and other priority claims and disputes in recent Canadian insolvency proceedings.
Introduction
Introduction
Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”
Background
On July 6, 2012, in Lightsquared LP (Re),1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Ontario Court"), released reasons that clarify the criteria for the identification of the centre of main interest ("COMI") of an applicant seeking recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings as "Foreign Main Proceedings" pursuant to Section 46 of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA").2
The Take-Away
Missing the limitations period for bringing a court action to recover a debt does not extinguish other legal rights and remedies in respect of that debt, such as bringing an application for bankruptcy or proving a claim in a bankruptcy estate.
The Case
In the recent decision of Frank v. Farlie, Turner & Co., LLC, 2011 ONSC 5519, Mr. Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found, among other things, that punitive damages are not available under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act as such damages are inconsistent with the scheme and purpose of Ontario’s statutory secondary market disclosure liability regime. In so doing, the court confirmed the fundamental importance of liability limits in continuous disclosure claims against directors and officers.