The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.
On 15 August 2008, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its reasons for judgment in Cliffs Over Maple Bay Investments Ltd. v. Fisgard Capital Corp. (CA036261). Tysoe J.A., for the court, said that a CCAA stay of proceedings “should not be granted or continued if the debtor company does not intend to propose a compromise or arrangement to its creditors.” CCAA filings designed to permit a debtor company to carry on business and to run a sales process for the sale of all or a substantial portion of the debtor company’s business is relatively common.
Introduction
Following the administration proceedings recently instituted against a number of UK entities (Affected Companies), many counterparties (Counterparties) may wish to terminate transactions under the TBMA/ISMA Global Master Repurchase Agreement (GMRA) entered into between them and Affected Companies.
On 15 September 2008, the FSA published a statement concerning Lehman Brothers Holding Inc.
In the statement the FSA states that Lehman Brothers Holding Inc, a US investment bank, announced that it intends to file a petition under chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code.
In Re Norame Inc. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303(Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal was again called upon to consider various issues of importance to insolvency practitioners. In a decision released on April 28, 2008, Mr. Justice LaForme delivered the judgment for the Court of Appeal and in so doing dismissed the appeal of Paddon + Yorke Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Norame Inc. (the "Trustee").
In the recent decision of Re WorkGroup Designs Inc.,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the "BIA") which relate to valuing and determining the claims of secured creditors in proposal proceedings under the BIA.
Background
On July 7, 2008, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") was proclaimed into force, along with complementary amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") and other related statutes. The new program protects a limited amount of the unpaid wages of employees when an employer becomes bankrupt or is placed into receivership, and the amendments to the BIA provide for the priority of some un-remitted pension contributions.
The Wage Earner Protection Program (the "WEPP")
Introduction
On 25 July 2008, HM Treasury published a Consultation Paper entitled Modernising the insolvency protections for the operation of financial markets - proposals to reform Part 7 of the 1989 Companies Act (the Consultation Paper).
Proposals
On July 23, 2008, the Canadian Government proclaimed into force amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") that provide super-priority security to claims, subject to specified limits, for unpaid wages ("Unpaid Wage Claims") and unpaid pension plan contributions ("Unpaid Pension Contribution Claims") in a bankruptcy or receivership proceeding, effective as of July 7, 2008.
Gleave and others v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund [2008] EWHC 1099 (Ch)
The High Court ruled that calculations of employer debt by scheme actuaries cannot be challenged by insolvency practitioners unless there is evidence of fraud or error.