D. Swift

Libro Credit Union brought a motion to determine a priority dispute over garnished funds.

Environmental Waterproofing Inc. had garnished funds from Jokey Plastics to satisfy a judgment against Huron Tract Holdings Inc. Libro claimed priority based on a perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA).

Environmental argued that Libro's claim was statute-barred and would result in unjust enrichment.

The court found that Libro's security interest was deemed continuously perfected under the PPSA and took priority over the garnishment.

The court also held that Libro's claim was not statute-barred and that there was no unjust enrichment.

The garnished funds were ordered to be paid to Libro.

The Licensed Insolvency Trustee brought a motion to approve a proposal made by the bankrupt, a real estate holding company whose primary assets were 62 unserviced residential lots.

An opposing creditor argued the proposal was not properly authorized by the corporation, failed to meet statutory requirements under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and was unreasonable as it primarily benefited the other shareholders.

The court found that the proposal was authorized in substance, did not violate statutory priority or conduct rules, and was reasonable as it forecasted a significantly higher return to creditors than a liquidation in bankruptcy.

The proposal was approved and a confidential valuation supplement was ordered sealed.

The court-appointed receiver of a non-profit housing co-operative moved for approval of an agreement of purchase and sale with a non-profit corporation.

The sale would preserve the property as affordable housing but required an increase in occupancy fees to fund necessary repairs.

A competing bidder submitted a revised offer after the bid deadline, matching the financial terms and offering a one-year freeze on occupancy fees, but without a long-term commitment to affordable housing.

Applying the Soundair test and considering the special factors for co-operative housing, the court found the receiver's process was fair and the recommended offer was not improvident.

The motion to approve the sale was granted.