May a deceased person who dies in bankruptcy having failed to complete his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be discharged from bankruptcy?

This was the question that the British Columbia Supreme Court wrestled with earlier this year in a reported decision that began by noting that there was no jurisdiction on point.

Re Gyro-Trac (USA) Inc. (“Gyro-Trac””) is the first appellate decision to consider the centre of main interests (COMI) of a corporate group. In that case, the Quebec Court Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision to recognize proceedings under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (“Chapter 11”) and to stay Canadian bankruptcy proceedings against Canadian members of a corporate group.

Pursuant to section 38 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”) a creditor of the bankrupt estate can obtain the trustee’s right to pursue estate litigation where the trustee refuses or fails to pursue such litigation. In a recent Ontario case, Indcondo Building Corp. v. Sloan [2010], CarswellOnt 9785, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the limitation period for the assigned litigation commences with the trustee’s knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim or the assignee’s knowledge of those facts.

On February 7, 2011, in In re DBSD North America, Inc.,1 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its opinion joining the Third Circuit in condemning socalled “gifting plans,” thus deepening the perceived circuit split with the First Circuit which has been interpreted as approving of gifting plans. In so doing, the Second Circuit relied on the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. 203 N. LaSalle St. P’ship2 and Norwest Bank Worthington v.

Abitibi

The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled in the Century Servicesi case that Goods and Services Tax (“GST”) deemed trusts under the federal Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) are ineffective in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

The current "Great Recession," which began in late 2007 with a maelstrom in the debt capital markets, has necessitated a rethinking of the federal income tax rules governing debt restructurings. The harsh rules2 promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in reaction to the 1991 taxpayer-favorable decision in Cottage Savings v. Commissioner,3 have been inhibiting restructurings. Instead, rules that did not trigger adverse tax results have been needed to induce lenders and borrowers to restructure obligations that can no longer be paid according to their terms.

One of the primary objectives of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is to provide the bankrupt with an opportunity to stay existing creditors and establish a financial “clean slate”. The stay imposed on existing creditors includes creditors with causes of action existing at the time the bankruptcy is initiated. As a result, bankrupts can cause a halt to any existing or potential litigation by assigning themselves into bankruptcy.

Case Comment - Re White Birch Paper Holding Co.

The purchase of an insolvent company’s assets by way of a credit bid has recently garnered attention, primarily because of the use of a credit bid in the Canwest Publishing Group restructuring. This past September the issue was again addressed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), this time by the Quebec Superior Court in the restructuring of White Birch Paper Holding Co. (“WBP”). The Court reaffirmed the acceptance of credit bids by Canadian courts.

Typically under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) when a debtor brings an application to extend the stay period, the court will grant the extension, so long as the applicant debtor is acting in good faith and with due diligence. In the vast majority of such extension applications the debtor has the support of the court appointed Monitor. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case Re Dura Automotive Systems (Canada) Ltd.