Recent regulations confirm that the GST/HST deemed trust has priority over all security interests and charges except for land or building charges. That exception has its own limitations. It is limited to the amount owing to the secured creditor at the time the tax debtor failed to remit the GST/HST. It also forces the secured creditor to look first to its other security; a kind of forced marshalling.

On December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada ( SCC) released its decision in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. In its decision, the SCC affirmed the importance of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) as a flexible restructuring tool, and clarified the source and limits of the Court’s authority during CCAA proceedings. Furthermore, the Court overruled the judgment of the B.C.

On October 26, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) released its decision in Canadian Petcetera Limited Partnership v. 2876 R Holdings Ltd., 2010 BCCA 469 (Petcetera), an important case that addresses the rights of landlords when a tenant has filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal (NOI) under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA).

Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit decided In re EDM Corp.,[1] affirming that a creditor’s priority in collateral may be sacrificed if the debtor’s exact legal name is not exclusively used in the financing statement.

Perhaps prompted by revelations that one or more Connecticut-based insurers failed to notify individuals or report known data security incidents or breaches until weeks, or even months, after the data had been lost or stolen, the state's Insurance Commissioner has issued stringent new reporting obligations applicable to all entities regulated by the Connecticut Department of Insurance (CDI), including, for example, insurers, agents, brokers, adjusters, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider networks, discount health plans and certain consultants and utilization review companie

In the recent decision of Justice Cumming In the Matter of the Proposal of Hypnotic Clubs Inc. (“Hypnotic” or the “Debtor”) the court dismissed a motion by the Debtor for a sale of its assets pursuant to s.65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

A group of creditors learned the hard way that there may be no excuse for a late claim. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge James Peck of the Southern District of New York recently disallowed seven proofs of claim that had been filed late in the Lehman bankruptcies. Judge Peck held that the reasons cited by the parties for the late filing did not rise to the level of “excusable neglect” and he was thus disallowing their claims. This is of particular interest as it comes out of the Southern District of New York, which has one of the largest bankruptcy dockets in the country.

The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the avoidance of nearly $2 million in postpetition payments made by debtor Delco Oil, Inc. (the "Debtor") to its petroleum supplier Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC ("Marathon").[1] The Eleventh Circuit held that funds received by Marathon from the Debtor constituted cash collateral that the Debtor had spent without the permission of either its secured lender, CapitalSource Finance ("CapitalSource"), or the bankruptcy court and, therefore, could be avoided under sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

We know this publication is about dispute resolution, but what we really want to talk about in this article is avoiding insolvency and bankruptcy disputes.

“If Only You Had Come to Us Sooner”

In a recent decision released by Madam Justice Kent of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench (the “Court”) the Court declined to grant Octagon Properties Group Ltd. and certain affiliates (“Octagon” or the “Debtors”) relief pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985 c.C36 (“CCAA”).