Bankruptcy Remote? Maybe Not

Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act1, trustees have considerable discretion to administer a bankrupt’s estate in an expedient manner. However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently confirmed that trustees must exercise such discretion within the limits of relevant statutory provisions and common law principles.

I.  Introduction

Canadian restructuring and liquidation legislation provides struggling companies and bankruptcy trustees with powerful tools to restructure their affairs and maximize value for stakeholders. For example, in the right circumstances valuable contracts can be assigned, on notice to the counterparties, to buyers prepared to pay well for the rights conferred under the contracts. In such circumstances, the counterparty’s bargained for right to withhold its consent to an assignment can be effectively overridden by court order.

The recent unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) in Clark v. Rameker, 573 U.S. _____ (2014) held that inherited IRAs do not constitute “retirement funds” within the meaning of section 522(b)(3)(C) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, inherited IRAs are not exempt from creditor claims in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court’s holding highlights the importance of sound financial and estate planning to protect inherited retirement plan assets from claims of a beneficiary’s creditors.

Background

Sadly, sometimes tragedy strikes, as it did for the Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway Ltd. in July, 2013, when one of its trains carrying crude oil derailed and exploded, resulting in 47 deaths, significant property and environmental damage, and the bankruptcy of the Railway. The Railway had a business interruption insurance policy, a settlement was reached with the insurer and the question of who was entitled to the multi-million-dollar settlement arose in the bankruptcy. In re Montreal Maine & Atlantic Ltd., 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 1628. 59 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 101 (Bankr. D.

A recent decision from an Oregon bankruptcy court provides a cautionary tale for lenders attempting to “bankruptcy proof” their borrowers. 

Once might be considered an aberration. Is twice the new normal?

Bankruptcy trustees should clearly communicate to the bankrupt their intent to make a claim against the non-exempt equity in the bankrupt's property at the time of the assignment into bankruptcy, according to the recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Re Barter.1 A failure to communicate such an intent may result in the trustee being unable to realize the non-exempt equity or, as in Re Barter, the absolute discharge

Bankruptcy court denizens, especially buyers of secured debt at a discount, were jolted by the recent Delaware Bankruptcy Court decision in In re Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc. In that decision, the court capped at $25 million the amount a secured creditor was permitted to credit bid its $168 million claim at a bankruptcy Section 363 sale. The $25 million credit bid cap correlated to the amount the secured creditor paid for the debt. While Section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy court to limit credit bidding “for cause,” the concerns he