One of the primary objectives of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is to provide the bankrupt with an opportunity to stay existing creditors and establish a financial “clean slate”. The stay imposed on existing creditors includes creditors with causes of action existing at the time the bankruptcy is initiated. As a result, bankrupts can cause a halt to any existing or potential litigation by assigning themselves into bankruptcy.

Case Comment - Re White Birch Paper Holding Co.

The purchase of an insolvent company’s assets by way of a credit bid has recently garnered attention, primarily because of the use of a credit bid in the Canwest Publishing Group restructuring. This past September the issue was again addressed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), this time by the Quebec Superior Court in the restructuring of White Birch Paper Holding Co. (“WBP”). The Court reaffirmed the acceptance of credit bids by Canadian courts.

Introduction

Typically under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) when a debtor brings an application to extend the stay period, the court will grant the extension, so long as the applicant debtor is acting in good faith and with due diligence. In the vast majority of such extension applications the debtor has the support of the court appointed Monitor. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case Re Dura Automotive Systems (Canada) Ltd.

Abitibi

In Capital One v. Solehdin,1 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized judgments of a Louisiana bankruptcy court and held that they were enforceable in Ontario. The judgments were summary judgments against guarantors under their respective guarantees. The decision is significant – it is one of the first cases where guarantors challenged the recognition and enforcement of such judgments of a foreign bankruptcy court on the basis that the foreign bankruptcy court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the judgments.

On 24 November 2009, ASIC released Consultation Paper 124 which provides guidance for directors on their duty to prevent insolvent trading which is imposed by section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001.

The economic climate over the past two years has seen a growing number of corporate insolvencies. There is also evidence that directors, and particularly directors of small to medium size enterprises, do not fully understand their duty to prevent insolvent trading.

Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:

Kookmin Bank v Rainy Sky

We have received a number of urgent enquiries about the outcome of the Kookmin Bank case, which was recently decided by the Court of Appeal, in London. The judgment was issued at the end of May 2010 and held, in effect, that refund guarantees -- relating to advance payments of about US$46 million -- were unenforceable by the Buyers to whom the guarantees had been issued. Given the importance of refund guarantees to our shipping and banking clients, we are issuing this summary of the judgment and its general significance.

Summary

The briefing provides an overview of the reorganisation plan introduced by the new Greek Bankruptcy Code. Its purpose is to set out the more important mechanics of the reorganisation plan and examine its more important ramifications within the bankruptcy process.

The new Greek Bankruptcy Code