It has long been standard practice for Court-appointed receivers, monitors and trustees in bankruptcy to include comprehensive disclaimer language in the reports they submit to Court in connection with insolvency proceedings. The reason is simple – these reports are relied on by the Court and other parties to the proceedings, and are often prepared using unaudited and unverified information obtained from management of the debtor company.
During the spring of 2012, the Canadian Appeals Monitor posted a five-part series on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Van Breda, Black, and
Morris Kaiser’s trustee in bankruptcy, Soberman Inc., thought it smelled a rat: while claiming to be impecunious, Kaiser appeared to be living a life of ‘some means’, which included trips to casinos in the US. Kaiser claimed he was drawing advances on the credit card of a buddy, Cecil Bergman, but the trustee suspected the whole thing was a front to shield Kaiser’s assets from his creditors.
In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek 7 where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.
Recently, the superior court rendered a decision 1 which clarifies the extent of the discretion a court has when asked to ratify a hypothecary creditor’s recommendation to appoint an employee of its legal counsel to act as the officer of the court entrusted with the sale by judicial authority of the collateral secured in its favour.
CONTEXT
In recent years, manufacturers and lessors of heavy industrial equipment have installed sophisticated systems into their units which require a computer code be entered in order for the equipment to operate. This computer code may need to be updated or changed periodically. If the purchaser or lessee is in arrears in making payment to the manufacturer or lessor, the manufacturer or lessor may refuse to supply the debtor with the new access code. In effect, the manufacturer or lessor has the ability to remotely render the equipment unusable.
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court overturned a controversial decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal which granted pension beneficiaries priority over DIP lenders in the context of a restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).1 The Court of Appeal’s decision led many to worry that lenders would be reticent to advance funds to restructuring debtors for fear of not being able to secure charges which would outrank all other claims.
On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its much-awaited decision in theIndalex case.1 While the central issue in Indalex was the priority of wind-up deficiencies in defined benefit pension plans versus court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing charges under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA), the SCC also considered whether claims for wind-up deficiencies are covered by deemed trusts under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA).
In 2011-0427101C6 (released this week), the CRA was asked whether a creditor’s acquisition of an interest in a debtor-partnership could qualify as a “seizure” of the debtor-partnership’s property for purposes of s. 79.1. Section 79.1 contains rules (often favorable) for a creditor where the creditor has “seized” property of a debtor as a result of a foreclosure, conditional sale repossession, or similar transaction.