Introduction
The appeal by an insurer ("Sovereign") was dismissed. The Court found that the notice provided to Sovereign by a co-defendant of the bankrupt insured was sufficient notice in accordance with the policy conditions for liability coverage. In the alternative, that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from forfeiture.
[2011] O.J. No. 4106
2011 ONCA 597
Ontario Court of Appeal
D.R. O'Connor A.C.J.O., J.I. Laskin and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A.
September 19, 2011
On August 18, 2011, Mr. Justice Morawetz, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, released an important decision in regard to preference actions in the matter of Tucker v. Aero Inventory (UK) Limited (together with Aero Inventory plc, Aero).
Background
Action for return of premiums paid of key man insurance policies dismissed.
[2011] O.J. No. 3387
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
M.A. Penny J.
January 21, 2011
A number of commentators have written articles about Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which deals with recognizing and enforcing foreign insolvency proceedings, however little has been written about the treatment of corporate groups in this context. Part IV of the CCAA deals with entities on an individual basis, and how to deal with corporate groups is not well addressed in international insolvency legislation.
As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).
During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.
The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.
Background
Insolvent companies with under-funded employee pension plans that want to borrow money to keep operating and ultimately return to profitability may find it tougher to find new financing as a result of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision.
The Court ruled on April 7 that Indalex Limited (and certain affiliated companies), the second largest aluminum extrusion company in North America, which administered two pension plans, one for employees and the other for executives, was obliged to pay its pension
Bill 68 – An Act to promote Ontario as open for business by amending or repealing
certain Acts (the “Open for Business Act”)1 received Royal Assent on October 25,
2010. It is an omnibus Act which contains more than 100 amendments to existing
legislation spread out across 10 ministries.