Search

Copyright of Canadian Foreign Policy Journal (CFPJ) is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Responding to concerns about burden-sharing and aiming to improve internal defence cooperation, act more quickly and harness resource synergies, the European Union (EU) initiated the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in 2017. PESCO, however, is controversial. On the one hand, the United States (US) wants greater burden-sharing by European allies whilst concerned about greater European military autarky that would undermine US influence over NATO, Europe/EU and EU member states. On the other hand, at least one European NATO ally wants to leverage PESCO precisely as an instrument to shore up European "strategic autonomy". This tension over competing European defence futures leaves participation by third countries in limbo. Arguably, third-country participation would hinder greater European defence autarky. The article makes the case for the mutual benefits of third-country participation, focusing on Canada. Canada has a major stake in the outcome. NATO is Canada's most important multilateral institution and Europe is Canada's second-most important strategic partner, after the US. Canada's unequivocal strategic interests in Europe have long informed its expeditionary priorities -- from the two world wars, when Canada coming to Europe's defence long before the US proved existential for both parties, to nowadays. Since the 1970s, Canada and Europe have worked consistently together bilaterally beyond NATO to advance regional stability and mutual security interests. Canada's and Europe's defence futures are thus interdependent. Excluding third countries from participating in PESCO would have detrimental consequences for Canadian, European and transatlantic defence interests. In contrast, with third country participation, PESCO will be instrumental to effective transatlantic and transeuropean defence integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes the conflict-of-laws rules of the USA and Canada on the effectiveness against third parties and priority of an assignment of trade receivables. Comparisons are also made with the rules proposed on these issues by the European Commission's Proposal of 12 March 2018 and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions. The conflict-of-laws rules examined in the article generally designate the location of the assignor as the place whose law applies to the effectiveness against third parties and the priority of an assignment. The article shows however that the definition of the location of the assignor varies from one jurisdiction to another (statutory seat, chief executive office, state of constitution, etc.) Moreover, the US rules and certain Canadian rules define the location of a business corporation using a criterion which is different depending on the corporation's jurisdiction of incorporation. In addition, the European Commission's Proposal allows the parties to an assignment made in the course of a securisation transaction to deviate from the assignor's location rule and select the law governing the receivable as the applicable law. All of these differences result in a lack of harmonization. The article also summarizes the analysis that a financier must conduct to identify the jurisdiction(s) where the financier would normally want that an assignment in its favour be recognized. The relevant jurisdictions are normally the jurisdiction(s) in which insolvency proceedings relating to the assignor may take place and the other jurisdiction(s) where the debtors of the receivables could be located; a dispute might sometimes occur in these other jurisdictions with a competing claimant attempting to claim priority (e.g. a judgement creditor who would seize receivables owed by the debtors located in those jurisdictions). As the insolvency jurisdiction(s) and the other jurisdiction(s) in which the debtors are located may have different conflict-of-laws rules, a prudent financier should examine the applicable rules of all relevant jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores how the Canadian Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) reshapes the manner in which individuals and organizations in Australia conceive of their legal relationship with artwork. Topics discussed include common law regime of secured transactions; artwork free of an existing security interest conferred on a third party; and exception of circumstances in which an art organization expressly grants a security interest over property to a bank for a loan.

The article presents an introductory overview of the Canadian Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) framework and a brief discussion of certain context-based considerations for art-secured loans. Topics discussed include secured lending which involves a financial loan for which a borrower has pledged property as collateral; jurisdiction of the Act, in which the parties to the loan transaction must indeed begin by creating a security interest; and challenges in obtaining priority rights.

The article focuses on subrogation in Canada and the settlement of subrogated claims in 2014. Topics include subrogation in insurance law, the awarding of damages for an insured loss, and when the right of subrogation can be enforced. Information is provided on the Canadian court case Lord Napier & Ettrick v. Hunter.

The Australian Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) is based in part on the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act, but it departs from the Saskatchewan model in numerous significant respects in terms of both drafting and substance. The differences fall into three main categories: (1) drafting differences; (2) substantive differences which are the result of mistakes on the part of the Australian law makers; and (3) substantive differences which reflect deliberate policy choices. For the most part, matters falling within categories (1) and (2) are unlikely to interest a Canadian observer, but matters falling within category (3) transcend the purely parochial and there is clearly room for an international dialogue at this level. This article focuses on selected aspects of the Australian PPSA, comparing them with the Canadian position and evaluating the alternatives. The article also addresses relevant aspects of Article 9 of the United States Uniform Commercial Code. The topics covered are as follows: (I) the Australian federal government's take-over of the PPSA legislative agenda; (2) the Australian PPSA's approach to security interests in cash collateral as compared with the Canadian approach; and (3) selected registration issues [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the law related to priority, creation and enforcement of security interest in personal property and the reforming of fixtures. The need of reform in the Australia's Personal Property Securities Act of 2009 due to uncertainty and the lack of proper law is discussed. The Canadian law of security interests in fixtures and the flexibility in the doctrine is also discussed.

Copyright of Canadian Bar Review is the property of Canadian Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) ('PPSA') came into effect on 30 January 2012. Among other things, the PPSA introduces a comprehensive new registration system for security interests in personal property. This article explains the elements of the PPSA registration system, with particular reference to how it differs from earlier registration systems including the provisions governing registration of company charges in ch 2K of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the registration requirements in the state and territory bills of sale and motor vehicle securities statutes. The article also explores similarities and differences between the Australian PPSA registration system and the Canadian and New Zealand systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the credit bidding and recent development in Canada including the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), asset sales, and auction process. It says that the White Birch CCAA proceeding involve significant discussion on credit bidding in Canada. It states that the case renders important details about the law on credit bidding including the continuance of credit bidding in Canada, security documentation, and credit bid can be applied to the collateral for the debt.

This paper focuses on a statutory provision common to Australian, New Zealand and Canadian personal property securities legislation which requires a grantor of a security interest generally to have 'rights in the collateral' before a security interest can attach to that collateral. It analyses the extent to which a particular construction of that provision, initially developed by Canadian courts and commentators in the context of certain lease transactions and now applied in New Zealand, may and should colour construction of the equivalent Australian legislation. The paper argues that 'new learning', which holds the interest of a lessee sufficient to enable a security interest to attach to leased goods, is capable of achievement through different reasoning to that currently adopted by New Zealand courts. Such reasoning has significant implications for understanding when a security interest may attach to personal property more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the enactement of the comprehensive statutory regime by the Personal Property Security Act (PPSAs) to ensure the security interests in personal property in Canada. The regulation states that the license remains the property of the Crown. The bill also allows legislatures to have an option to prevent security interests in statutory license by specifying in the statute the license is not movable.

Copyright of Canadian Bar Review is the property of Canadian Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article provides answers to questions about the size of the security and investigation services industry in Canada. Using Statistics Canada data sources, a profile of the industry is developed. The private security industry in Canada grew dramatically between 1991 and 2001. Employment increased by 69%,from 46,651 in 1991 to 78,919 in 2001. Growth was strongest in the latter years of the study period. All provinces for which data were available experienced growth in employment. Most security employees are men. Revenues in 2000 for security and investigation services were approximately $2.7 billion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the interpretation of guarantees in Canada in the case `Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin.' Facts of the case; Court decision; Implication of the court's decision.

Copyright of INSOL: International Insolvency Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)