Original Newsletter(s) this article was published in: Blaneys on Business Bulletin: June 2015
The courts in Ontario and Delaware have decided who is to be paid what from the more than $7.1 billion available to meet creditors’ claims in the Nortel Networks insolvency, closing the 120-year-old book on Canada’s first global research, development and technology enterprise.
A discharge is effective whether or not the secured party intended to discharge that particular registration. That was the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,1 which left JP Morgan unsecured for $1.5 billion as a result of a paperwork mix-up. Case law in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada suggests that the decision here would be the same. Conseq
This article first appeared in the December 2014 edition of Corporate Rescue & Insolvency journal. Written by Deepak Reddy in Dentons' New York office, Carlo Vairo in Dentons’ Toronto office and Alexander Hewitt in Dentons' London office.
Key Points
What does the U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination have to do with Canada? Superficially, the answer may be: not much. But for many financing and insolvency professionals here in Canada, there remains a palpable sense that the U.S. doctrine will eventually, if not inevitably, find its way fully across the U.S. border into Canada. So, perhaps the more appropriate response really ought to be: not much, at least not yet! It is because of this anticipation that it is worthwhile, from time to time, to summarize the central aspects of the U.S.
Recent Developments
A Canadian on-line dating site, PlentyofFish, wanted to purchase the bankrupt site True.com but the Texas Attorney General filed a petition to block the marriage on the ground that the transfer of the private personal information of millions of people who had used True.com would potentially violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Which made us think: Is a corporation’s violation of its customers’ personal privacy covered by insurance?
In Ontario, a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lender is usually granted a charge by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) over the assets of the debtor which is under the protection of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) to secure the repayment of the DIP loan. The priority of the charge is set out in the order granting the charge. Most such orders provide that prior to exercising its rights and remedies against the debtor after an event of default, the DIP lender must appl