In dealing with collateral provided by a third party to support the obligations of the prime debtor, lenders and their counsel need to remember the impact of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Ontario’s Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) was amended to broaden the definition of the word “debtor.” However, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act’s (BIA) definition of a “secured creditor” is still restricted to a person holding a charge or a lien “as security for debt due or accruing to the person (lender) holding the debt.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Philadelphia Newspapers LLC,1 has ruled that secured creditors do not have a right, as a matter of law, to credit bid their claims when their collateral is sold under a plan of reorganization. The Third Circuit held that secured creditors may be barred from credit bidding where a debtor's reorganization plan provides secured creditors with the "indubitable equivalent" of their secured interest in the assets. The court's ruling follows a similar ruling last year by the U.S.

Significant insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in Bill C-55 which received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005 and in Bill C-12 which received Royal assent on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until September 18, 2009.

Recently, various national title insurance companies, such as First American Title Insurance Company and the entire Fidelity National Title Group—which includes Chicago Title Insurance Company, Fidelity National Title, Ticor Title, Lawyers Title, Commonwealth Land Title, Security Union Title and Alamo Title—officially announced that, effective immediately, creditors' rights coverage will no longer be available by endorsement, affirmative coverage, issuance of the American Land Title Association (ALTA) 1970 policies or otherwise. This change affects both owner's and loan policies.

As we previously wrote about (Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2008), the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) came into force on July 7, 2008 as part of a comprehensive reform package to the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (“BIA”). WEPPA was designed to protect the wages of employees terminated as a result of a bankruptcy or receivership. Employees could now claim up to $3,000 worth of wages earned in the six months immediately preceding the bankruptcy or receivership, as well as a $2,000 super priority claim on all current assets of their employer.

After years of waiting, significant amendments to the Canadian regime of bankruptcy and insolvency law were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (Amendments).

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its decision with respect to the appeal of Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation and has rekindled discussion as to the risks associated with an Operator’s right to commingle his own general funds with trust funds held for the benefit of Joint Operators.

Facts

Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Karl Oil and Gas Ltd., 2009 ABCA 99, 5 Alta. L.R. (5th) 1; on appeal from 2008 ABQB 444, 96 Alta. L.R. (4th) 329.

Vanquish Oil and Gas Corp. (“Vanquish”) operated certain oil wells. Under the 1990 Canadian Association of Petroleum Landman Operating Procedure under which Vanquish operated these wells, Vanquish was to receive well revenues in trust, it could commingle revenues with its other monies, and was to pay the revenues “only to their intended use”.

Insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in bills which received Royal assent on November 25, 2005 and on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until now.

Philip Gaidy and Judy-Kae McLeod v. Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. CV-09-095088-00 (S.C.J.) (Lauwers, J.)

Gaidy leased a 2007 Dodge truck from Chrysler Financial (“CF”) as lessor. McLeod entered into a conditional sales contract for a 2006 Hummer with CF as vendor.

Both were chronically late in payment and hid the vehicles. CF recovered the vehicles. Both applied to court to force CF to allow them to re-instate their agreements under s. 66(2) of the Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”).