Mercedes Benz Financial v. Ivica Kovacevic (Ont. SCJ)

February 26, 2009: Finding of contempt of Court: [2009] O.J. No. 783

March 3, 2009: Sentencing hearing and order of five days in jail [2009] O.J. No. 888

Mr. Kovacevic (the “Debtor”) entered into a conditional sale contract to finance a Mercedes vehicle with

Mercedes Benz Financial. After seven of forty-eight payments, he defaulted in payment. He refused to pay or return the vehicle.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

Re Friedman (2008), 49 C.B.R. (5th) 131 (Ont. S.C.J. in bankruptcy)

Mr. Friedman assigned his rights to royalties he would receive from SOCAN, the Canadian copyright collective that administers royalties for tis members, to his music publisher, to secure loan advances to him from the publisher.

Resin Systems Inc. v. Global Composite Manufacturing Inc., [2008] O.J. No. 5427, (Ont. S.C.J., Commercial List)

Resin developed certain equipment used to manufacture transmission poles. Resin entered into a manufacturing and licence agreement with Global Composite, and leased the equipment to Global Composite to make and improve the product. The agreements provided Global Composite was to keep the equipment free of any lien or claim, unless there was the express written consent of Resin.

Innovation Credit Union v. Bank of Montreal [2009] S.J. No. 147; 2009 SKCA 35, on appeal from 2007 SKQB 471

October 1991:     Saskatchewan farmer James Buist (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Innovation Credit Union (“CU”). The general security agreement was not perfected under the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) by registration.

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This expression is particularly apt when it comes to secured creditors and their registrations under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the “PPSA”). Although “getting it right the first time” has always been the mantra of secured creditors, the economic roller coaster ride of recent months has heightened the need to ensure a properly perfected secured claim.

As we have recently noted, the federal banking agencies have worked together to expand the pool of investors eligible to bid to acquire failing depository institutions. See our 21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce Alert entitled “OCC Approves Shelf Charter for National Banks to Encourage New Investment” (Nov. 25, 2008). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) has recently modified the receivership process in less obvious ways that also may have important ramifications for investors. 

On July 28, 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) published for comment a proposed rule that would require certain troubled depository institutions to maintain records of their qualified financial contracts (“QFCs”) in order to provide the FDIC with basic information when the agency is appointed as receiver. 73 Fed. Reg. 43635. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the FDIC by September 26, 2008.

In the case of Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,¹ the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the payment of stamp taxes or similar taxes on transfers of property of a Chapter 11 debtor’s estate, contained in section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code,² does not apply to transfers of property made before a Chapter 11 plan is confirmed.

The hurdles for KERP programs have been raised too high, causing debtors to lose critical personnel to the detriment of post-petition operations, say Frost Brown Todd’s Ronald Gold and Doug Lutz in our series of chats with high-profile bankruptcy lawyers.

Q. What’s the most challenging bankruptcy you’ve worked on, and why?