On December 1, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2014(FIBA).  The legislation passed on a voice vote and is supported by the major Wall Street banks.

All bankruptcy practitioners know that a debtor may choose which contracts to assume and which contracts to reject.  But may a debtor reject contracts that are part of an overall, integrated transaction?  In a recent bankruptcy decision, the court found the answer to be no, at least if the parties are careful in drafting their contracts.

In its June 11, 2014 decision in Iona Contractors Ltd. (Re), 2014 ABQB 347 (“Iona Contractors”), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the “Alberta  QB”)  held that the trust created by section 22  of  the  Builders’ Lien Act (Alberta) is not effective in the bankruptcy of a would-be trustee debtor. This result  is  consistent with, but reached completely independently of, the recent Ontario  Superior Court  of Justice  (Commercial List) decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Atlas Block Co.

In his recent decision inRoyal Bank of Canada v.Atlas Block Co. Limited, 2014 ONSC 3062 (“Atlas Block”), Justice Penny of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) held that trust claims pursuant to section 8 of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) do not survive the bankruptcy of the would-be trustee debtor.

In a November 20,2013 decision in the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. and Aero Technical US, Inc.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

In its recent decision in Century Services Inc v Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) held that, in the context of a Companies’Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the “CCAA”) proceeding, the Crown does not have a superpriority claim over the property of a debtor for unremitted goods and services tax (“GST”) amounts. The decision of the SCC majority rejected existing appellate-level case law, and brought the priority of Crown claims in-line with what they are in bankruptcy proceedings.