A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal illustrates that secured creditors should address their priority position relative to all other creditors of their borrower in order to achieve a complete subordination of competing security. Failure to do so in this case resulted in circular priorities that the Court was left to resolve. In light of the Court of Appeal’s decision, secured creditors should ensure they are a party to all subordination agreements with the debtor in order to achieve their expected result.

The Facts and Agreements

In May of 2010, we reported on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Ted Leroy Trucking v. Century Services Inc. In that decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the B.C.

Last month, I appeared before the federal government’s Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to convey our concerns regarding Bill C-501,An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and other Acts (pension protection), which if passed will alter the status of

Section 38 of the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the "Act") contains an exception to the general priority scheme of the Act. It provides that a secured creditor may, in the relevant security agreement or otherwise, subordinate its security interest to any other security interest, and that such subordination will be effective according to its terms. No distinction is drawn between perfected and unperfected security interests.

Introduction

On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.

The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.

Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:

On March 22, 2010, the Superior Court of Quebec approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA) that allowed a corporation, MEGA Brands Inc., to achieve a worldwide restructuring of its business under a corporate statute, rather than a more typical insolvency and restructuring statute like the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act.

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky

We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.

Summary

The briefing provides an overview of the reorganisation plan introduced by the new Greek Bankruptcy Code. Its purpose is to set out the more important mechanics of the reorganisation plan and examine its more important ramifications within the bankruptcy process.

The new Greek Bankruptcy Code