The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.

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.

Typically, courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.

However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharma­ceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that the courts can adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (the "Act").

In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor's assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an ex­amination under oath be­fore a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:

(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;

(b) the debtor's income and property;

(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;

(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;

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?

In a decision in In re Enron Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63129, No. 05-01025 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2007), the Honorable Shira Scheindlin, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, held that the sale of a claim that is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) or disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code may insulate the claim from subordination and disallowance when asserted against the buyer of the claim. At first blush the decision may be, and has been, read by some to offer relief and clarity to distressed debt investors.

Courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.

However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that it could adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“Act”).

Should Lenders be Concerned?

In the United States, claims for “deepening insolvency” have been advanced against lenders and investment bankers to insolvent companies as well as against the officers and directors of insolvent companies. Experience suggests that developments in U.S. commercial laws tend to be imported north of the border.1 Accordingly, lenders should be aware of the existence of the theory of deepening insolvency and the risk of creditors attempting to use it in Canada.

What is Deepening Insolvency?

For some participants in the debt and credit markets, insider trading risks seem like a problem for someone else. There is some statistical basis for that assumption; the law of insider trading has been developed largely through cases involving the equity markets. There is no basis, however, for a sense of immunity. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s recent settlement involving Barclays Bank PLC and Steven J. Landzberg, a former proprietary trader for Barclays’ U.S.

A recent bankruptcy court decision in the Southern District of New York may raise concern among brokerage firms who execute and clear brokerage transactions for hedge funds and similar investment vehicles. The bankruptcy trustee of the Manhattan Investment Fund (which the court found to be a Ponzi scheme and whose principal Michael Berger pled guilty to criminal charges) obtained summary judgment against Bear Stearns requiring it to return to the bankruptcy estate all the margin payments the fund had made in the year before it imploded, totaling $141.4 million.