We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Steven Golick Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 11



Pensions v. DIP charge: the continuing Timminco saga unions’ motion for leave to appeal denied *

Canada - August 27 2012
The law in Canada concerning priorities between the statutory deemed trusts relating to pension plan contributions and certain pension fund shortfalls on the one hand, and court ordered charges in favour of DIP lenders on the other hand has been in a state of flux ever since the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) in Re Indalex.

Co-authors: Lindsay Offner.


Clarifying COMI: Ontario Superior Court of Justice clarifies the test for determining a debtor’s center of main interest *

Canada - August 13 2012
In Re LightSquared LP, the Ontario Court of Superior Justice [Commercial List] (the “Canadian Court”) refined the test for determining the location of a debtor’s center of main interest (“COMI”) under Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”), which is the Canadian equivalent of Chapter 15 of the U.S.

Co-authors: Patrick Riesterer.


A DIP departure *

Canada, USA - July 30 2012
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.

Co-authors: Andrea Lockhart.


Supreme Court of Canada hears appeal of Re Indalex Limited *

USA - July 16 2012
On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Indalex Limited (“Indalex”).

Co-authors: Patrick Riesterer.


DIP financing rules crystallized: interim DIP financing arrangements approved by the Ontario Court of Appeal *

Canada - July 2 2012
In Re Crystallex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) unanimously upheld three orders of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) that (1) authorized bridge financing, (2) authorized interim financing pursuant to section 11.2 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) and (3) authorized a management incentive program (“MIP”).

Co-authors: Mary Paterson, Lindsay Offner.


Next »