Law360 Canada ( April 24, 2026, 9:37 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from an order adjudging him bankrupt and appointing B. Riley Farber Inc. as trustee of his estate (the Bankruptcy Order), and an order determining that a pre‑existing Mareva injunction obtained in the TUV litigation remained in effect (the Mareva Order). The Monitor obtained judgments exceeding $21.8 million in the TUV litigation based on findings that the appellant orchestrated a false invoicing scheme that extracted tens of millions. The appellant argued the Monitor lacked authority to bring the bankruptcy application, that bankruptcy was redundant or inconsistent with the Monitor’s role, that the application was brought for a collateral purpose tied to Zurich Insurance, and that he was able to pay his debts through anticipated success in litigation with his father concerning share ownership. He further submitted the General Mareva Order merged in the 2021 TUV judgment and therefore expired. The Monitor disputed all grounds and maintained that the appellant owed over $27.4 million, committed acts of bankruptcy, possessed no present means to pay, and that the Mareva injunction was required given the findings of asset dissipation. The issues were whether the Bankruptcy Order and Mareva Order were appealable as of right, whether the bankruptcy judge erred in rejecting the preliminary objections, in refusing to dismiss or stay the bankruptcy application, and whether continuing the Mareva injunction post‑judgment was proper....