During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

In the recent case of Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine:

Unremitted source deductions are subject to a deemed trust in favour of the Crown under Section 227 of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), Section 86 of theEmployment Insurance Act (the “EIA”) and Section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”). Subsection 227(4) of the ITA creates the trust for income tax deductions and Subsection 227(4.1) creates a super-priority lien in favour of the Crown, in the amount of the trust, over all the debtor’s assets.

In its recent decision in Century Services Inc v Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) held that, in the context of a Companies’Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the “CCAA”) proceeding, the Crown does not have a superpriority claim over the property of a debtor for unremitted goods and services tax (“GST”) amounts. The decision of the SCC majority rejected existing appellate-level case law, and brought the priority of Crown claims in-line with what they are in bankruptcy proceedings.

The case of Canrock Ventures LLC v. Ambercore Software Inc. et al is a cautionary tale for a Receiver and its counsel alike. In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected a Receiver’s application for the approval of an asset purchase agreement because of a failure to take the requisite steps when conducting a sale process and, in the Court’s view, failing to remain a neutral officer of the Court.

In a previous Financial Services Flash, we brought to your attention the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Bankruptcy Court”) in the case ofIn re Tousa. In a decision that raised serious concerns for lenders in the United States, Justice Olson held that the first and second ranking secured lenders of Tousa Inc. (“Tousa”) did not act in good faith and were grossly negligent in providing Tousa with a secured loan less than six months before Tousa filed for bankruptcy.

The 2010 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Murphy v. Sally Creek Environs Corp. (Trustee of) considered the role of a trustee in bankruptcy as an officer of the court and its obligation to act fairly and with integrity throughout bankruptcy proceedings.

Tribal economies are not immune to the recent global financial crisis and economic downturn. The Indian gaming industry was hit especially hard. After consistent year-over-year growth in tribal gaming revenues during the 1990s and continuing through 2008, industry revenues declined in 2009 and have continued to stagnate. Amid reports of several tribal casino defaults—and many more tribes with significant debt maturing in the near future that will need to be restructured—tribes and creditors must consider two questions: Are tribes and their corporations eligible for bankruptcy?

In a recent 113-page decision, Judge Alan S. Gold of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida quashed the TOUSA Bankruptcy Court’s previous controversial fraudulent conveyance decision that required secured lenders (the "Transeastern Lenders") to disgorge approximately $480 million received in settlement of their claims against TOUSA.

In April 2010, we reported on the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Superior Court”) in In the Matter of the Proposal of C.I.F. Furniture Limited (“CIF”) which dealt with the question of circular priorities. This decision was recently upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”). The Court of Appeal’s decision will offer some comfort to lenders where intercreditor agreements exist between some but not all of the secured lenders of a borrower.