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.

On January 15, 2010, in In re Reliant Energy Channelview LP, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denying payment of a $15 million break-up fee to the initial bidder of a power plant in conjunction with the debtor’s Section 363 bankruptcy asset sale. The Court based its ruling on the fact that it did not consider the fee necessary to preserve the value of the bankruptcy estate.

Rather than immediately commencing foreclosure proceedings, lenders and servicers (acting on behalf of the lender) are seeking the judicial appointment of receivers with greater frequency when commercial real estate workout negotiations fail to produve the desired results and the borrower is not otherwise prepared to "turn over the keys."

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

In Dumont v. Ford Motor Credit Company, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the Bankruptcy Code does not protect a debtor’s personal property collateral if the debtor fails to commit to redeem, reaffirm or assume the underlying loan—even if the debtor continues timely to make loan payments.

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”).