KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.

In McGoey (Re), 2019 ONSC 80, Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found trusts over two properties held by a bankrupt were void as shams. In his decision, Justice Penny noted that had he not found the trusts to be sham trusts, he would still have set them aside as fraudulent conveyances, making us ask: “what is the difference between a sham trust and a fraudulent conveyance?”

KERPs (Key Employee Retention Plans) and KEIPs (Key Employee Incentive Plans), otherwise referred to as “pay to stay” compensation plans, are commonly offered by employers to incent key employees to remain with the company during an insolvency restructuring proceeding when so-called “key employees” may be tempted to find more stable employment elsewhere.

In Water Matrix Inc. v Carnevale, Justice Sanfilippo found that a consent judgment may survive bankruptcy if it arises from a claim that is based in fraud. This allowed a company that was defrauded by a former employee to continue to enforce the company’s judgment after bankruptcy.

Background

In a recent decision Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership 2018 BCSC 970, the British Columbia Superior Court confirmed that:

Bloom Lake General Partner Limited, Wabush Resources Inc. and related entities (Bloom Lake) received Court protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) in 2015 and subsequently virtually all of its assets were liquidated. The remaining assets included preference claims valued at approximately $173 million.

On March 16, 2018, a Quebec Court approved a litigation funding agreement for an insolvent company operating under court-protection in a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding. The insolvent company wanted to pursue a significant claim against its primary secured creditor and the litigation funding agreement stipulated that the third party litigation funder will pay all legal fees and disbursements in relation to the proposed claim in exchange for a portion of any proceeds of the litigation.

In Esfahani v. Samimi, 2018 ONCA 516 the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a plaintiff pursuing a fraudulent conveyance or preference must recognize that the legal landscapes changes with a bankruptcy and that the effects of a bankruptcy filing cannot be ignored.

Recent legislative amendments in Ontario are intended to protect construction subcontractors from the claims of other creditors in the event of insolvency. They impose a new requirement to maintain written records for trust funds that will be in effect as of July 1, 2018.

In Tri-State Signature Homes Ltd, Re, 2017 ABQB 587, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ruled that the statutory stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) does not prevent a creditor of the insolvent person from demanding payment under a letter of credit.