If you are interested in submitting a bid to buy assets from a Court appointed receiver in Ontario and there is a Court approved sales process, then it is important to submit your bid as part of that Court approved sales process. A bid tendered outside the sales process time line and procedure (even if it turns out to be the highest bid) will generally end up being a losing bid.

On July 14, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Reliance Insurance Company, an application regarding the allocation of surplus arising from the liquidation of the Canadian branch (Reliance Canada) of U.S.-based Reliance Insurance Company (Reliance U.S.), a property and casualty insurer that was itself in liquidation.

On May 8, 2009, the Honourable Madam Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C36, as amended (the “CCAA”) in respect of Gandi Innovations Limited (“Gandi Canada”), Gandi Innovations Holdings LLC (“Gandi Holdings”) and Gandi Innovations LLC (“Gandi Texas”) (collectively, the “Gandi Group”).

In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for court approval of the Bidding Procedures pertaining to the sale of Nortel’s “Layer 4-7” business, as well as approval of a “Stalking Horse” bidding process.

Prior to filing for protection under the CCAA, Nortel decided that the Layer 4-7 business should be sold. Shortly after filing, Nortel agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Radware for the purchase of the Layer 4-7 business (the “Purchase Agreement”).

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court rejected a bankrupt music composer’s argument that a security interest the composer had granted in royalty based distributions should be ineffective following his bankruptcy.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

In the recent decision of Re Rieger Printing Ink Co., Justice Pepall of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) considered the right to protection against selfincrimination in a Section 163 examination conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA").

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This expression is particularly apt when it comes to secured creditors and their registrations under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the “PPSA”). Although “getting it right the first time” has always been the mantra of secured creditors, the economic roller coaster ride of recent months has heightened the need to ensure a properly perfected secured claim.

An Ontario Court recently confirmed that an execution creditor does not have priority over the unsecured creditors of a debtor upon the insolvency of the debtor even if the judgment creditor is then holding funds of the debtor which it has garnisheed.

In February 2008, the Superior Court of Justice – Ontario granted Cotton Ginny Inc., CG Operations Limited ("H/O"), CG Operations I Limited and CG Operations II Limited, protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act.

Banks have a recognized right to set off amounts owing by the bank to its customer (i.e. a credit balance in the customer’s bank account) against the customer’s debt to the bank. However, banks frequently wish to have the additional comfort of obtaining a security interest in the customer’s credit balance in a designated bank account. Banks frequently refer to this security as a pledge of cash collateral.