Registering a financing statement under the Ontario PPSA[1] to perfect a security interest is a key means of protecting a secured creditor’s priority over collateral. It is important for secured creditors to be cognizant however that there are situations where other claims that are not subject to traditional registration requirements may still trump a secured creditor’s registered security interest.

Q: What is the difference between a general assignment of rents and leases and a specific assignment of rents and leases, and when should I include them in my term sheet for a commercial real estate financing of an Ontario property?

37026  Steven Paul Boone v. Her Majesty the Queen

(Ont.)

Criminal law – Offences – Elements of offence

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Crate Marine Sales ¹serves as a reminder regarding the trigger for the obligation of a court appointed receiver to pay occupation rent.

36778   Ad Hoc Group of Bondholders v. Ernst & Young Inc. in its capacity as Monitor et al.

(ON)

Commercial law – Bankruptcy and insolvency – Interest

Trust claims against a borrower’s assets are something that no secured creditor wants to be confronted with. Such claims are often unexpected because they are, for the most part, undetectable. They lurk in the shadows, out of the reach of traditional due diligence measures and PPSA searches. As a result, even the most prudent of creditors can sometimes find themselves facing these undocumented and unquantifiable claims.

Introduction

A recent decision of the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (OPC) highlights the potentially broad application of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).1

Introduction

A bankruptcy discharge hearing is the forum for the Court’s determination of a bankrupt’s application for discharge which has been opposed by one or more of: a creditor, the Trustee, or the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. This paper will aim to provide practical advice on preparing for and arguing an opposed discharge, whether from the perspective of the bankrupt, an opposing creditor, or the Trustee.1

Discharge

If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.