The new law of 19 March 2012 amending the Belgian Companies Code on the liquidation procedure which entered into force on 17 May 2012 (the “Law”) has put an end to the legal uncertainty and the controversial practice that arose from the law of 2 June 2006 regarding the realisation of the dissolution and liquidation of a company in one single act.

This new Law has to be read alongside the law of 22 April 2012 amending the Judicial Code on the liquidation procedure of companies (also entered into force on 17 May 2012).

Under European law, there are no general rules whit respect to the liability of a holding company for the debts of its insolvent subsidiary.

The Council Regulation (EC) N° 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings only provides for a common framework for insolvency proceedings in the European Union (EU). The harmonised rules on insolvency proceedings intend to prevent assets or judicial proceedings being transferred from one EU country to another for the purposes of obtaining a more favourable legal position to the detriment of creditors (“forum shopping”).

The British Columbia case of Botham Holdings Ltd. (Trustee of) v. Braydon Investments Ltd. is a reminder that tax and estate plans must take non-tax issues and law into account. It can be extremely dangerous to let the tax tail wag the dog!

Mr. Botham and a family trust were the shareholders of Botham Holdings Ltd. ("Holdings"). In 2004 Holdings was fortunate enough to realize a large capital gain and, as a result, incurred a significant income tax liability.

Through its decision of 27 November 2008, the Belgian Constitutional Court declared netting arrangements in insolvency proceedings, which are explicitly allowed under the Belgian Financial Collateral Law of 15 December 2004, unconstitutional where such netting arrangements apply to non-merchants. Despite the numerous criticisms about this decision, the amended Belgian Financial Collateral Law, entered into force on 10 November 2011, now explicitly excludes non-merchants from its scope.

Generally speaking, the policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is not to interfere with secured creditors, leaving them free to realize upon their security. While this makes sense in the abstract, the question that is most often posed by secured creditors is “what does this mean in a practical sense?  What exactly do I need to do to retrieve my secured asset?”

Perimeter Transportation Ltd. (Re), 2010 BCCA 509, on appeal from 2009 BCSC 1458

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60

Section 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act creates a deemed trust for unremitted GST, which operates despite any other act of Canada, except the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. However section 18.3(1) of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") provides that any statutory deemed trust in favour of the Crown does not operate under the CCAA, subject to certain exceptions which do not mention GST.

Outdoor Broadcast Networks Inc (Re), 2010 ONSC 5647

The debtor had filed a notice of intention to make a proposal (“NOI”) to its creditors under the BIA. It was proposing to immediately sell certain assets in Ontario and BC to help it fund its proposal. As the proposal had not yet been made, the debtor was the one selling assets out of the ordinary course, and the sale was subject to the Ontario Bulk Sales Act. That Act does not apply to sales by bankruptcy trustees, receivers, sheriffs, or other liquidators for the benefit of creditors.

Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 259, on appeal from (2009) 319 D.L.R. (4th) 735 (BCCA)

The union on behalf of the unionized employees of Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd., the bankrupt employer, had applied to the B.C.S.C. for directions and obtained a decision of that Court that the “wages” protected under the WEPPA “superpriority” for unpaid employees included amounts paid by the employer to third parties on behalf of the employees.

The December 2009 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society Inc. is significant in clarifying the right of the boards of directors of non-profit corporations in receivership to retain legal counsel and pay legal fees out of the corporation’s funds. The case arose out of the contested receivership of two non-profit First Nations social housing corporations.