Good evening.
Following are the summaries for this week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Summer is over and Autumn is truly upon us bringing back many of the winds that seemed die down in the golden summer of Macron. Eurosceptic parties have made electoral gains in Germany and in Austria and the same has now happened in the Czech Republic. The hope that Macron and Merkel could push forward a strong integrationist agenda have faded somewhat as the German liberal party (and possibly the German Supreme Court) fight against common budgets and fiscal transfers.
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.
Creditors often think that an involuntary bankruptcy petition is a great bargaining chip when faced with a recalcitrant debtor. However, the actual filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition (when that petition is filed in “bad faith”) confers a considerable risk to the petitioning creditors. Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion that re-emphasizes just how risky bad faith involuntary petitions can be for creditors.
Here’s an aggregation of some of my Twitter posts from May 10-15, 2018, with links to important cases, articles, and news briefs that restructuring professionals will find of interest. Don’t hesitate to reach out and contact me to discuss any posts.
May 10 – 15, 2018
BK RELATED CASES:
When faced with a recalcitrant debtor, clients sometimes move too quickly to put the debtor into an involuntary bankruptcy, especially when fraudulent transfers and other creditor avoidance attempts become apparent. But creditors considering filing or joining in the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition, and the attorneys that represent them, have much to deliberate before becoming involved in an involuntary bankruptcy filing.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)
When an adversary proceeding is transferred to the district court pursuant to a withdrawal of the reference, which rules—and deadlines—apply: those contained within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or those contained within the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure? The Eleventh Circuit recently held the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, govern adversary proceedings before the district courts. Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, 2016 WL 1392642 (11th Cir. 2016).
(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
Businesses need to have written protocols in place to deal with bankruptcy filings by their employees and independent contractors, or they risk serious sanctions and, potentially, punitive damages for violations of the bankruptcy laws. Consider two examples.