Outdoor Broadcast Networks Inc (Re), 2010 ONSC 5647

The debtor had filed a notice of intention to make a proposal (“NOI”) to its creditors under the BIA. It was proposing to immediately sell certain assets in Ontario and BC to help it fund its proposal. As the proposal had not yet been made, the debtor was the one selling assets out of the ordinary course, and the sale was subject to the Ontario Bulk Sales Act. That Act does not apply to sales by bankruptcy trustees, receivers, sheriffs, or other liquidators for the benefit of creditors.

In April 2010, we reported on the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Superior Court”) in In the Matter of the Proposal of C.I.F. Furniture Limited (“CIF”) which dealt with the question of circular priorities. This decision was recently upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”). The Court of Appeal’s decision will offer some comfort to lenders where intercreditor agreements exist between some but not all of the secured lenders of a borrower.

The 2010 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Murphy v. Sally Creek Environs Corp. (Trustee of) considered the role of a trustee in bankruptcy as an officer of the court and its obligation to act fairly and with integrity throughout bankruptcy proceedings.

In the Ontario case of Re Xerium Technologies Inc., the Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) was asked to recognize an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Court”) approving a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) of the debtors, Xerium Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Xerium”), made under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Code”).

Where a tenant becomes insolvent, landlords are often faced with a courtappointed Receiver inserted in place of the insolvent debtor who wishes to operate the tenant’s business or conduct a sale of assets on site. While the landlord may be able to successfully negotiate payment of occupation rent, a common issue that arises iswho is responsible for any damages to the leased premises? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in General Motors Corporation v.

The December 2009 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society Inc. is significant in clarifying the right of the boards of directors of non-profit corporations in receivership to retain legal counsel and pay legal fees out of the corporation’s funds. The case arose out of the contested receivership of two non-profit First Nations social housing corporations.

Introduction and Background

In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.

In Capital One v. Solehdin,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized judgments of a Louisiana bankruptcy court and held that they were enforceable in Ontario. The judgments were summary judgments against guarantors under their respective guarantees. The decision is significant – it is one of the first cases where guarantors challenged the recognition and enforcement of such judgments of a foreign bankruptcy court on the basis that the foreign bankruptcy court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the judgments.

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.