On December 8, 2014, the American Bankruptcy Institute (ABI) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 published a 400-page report containing far-reaching recommendations. The report is the result of a three-year study process undertaken by a number of leading insolvency and restructuring practitioners charged by ABI with evaluating the U.S.

Intellectual property rights are meant to protect that which cannot be easily protected: ideas, images, music and brands. The creators of these intangible concepts are given an economic monopoly over them, in the hopes of fostering greater creativity and economic growth. Bankruptcy law, on the other hand, seeks to equitably distribute the property of the bankrupt among its creditors, subject to the rights of secured creditors.  There is an inherent conflict between the rights of two groups.

In Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v Hellas Telecom., S.A.R.L., 2014 NY Slip Op 24268 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2014), the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on two important issues related to the right to sue for recovery with respect to notes issued under indentures. First, the court held that assignments of a right of collection, but not title to the claims or the note itself, are insufficient as a matter of New York law to confer standing upon an assignee to sue for recovery on a defaulted note.

On June 20, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex. 2014). In Ritchie, a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation attempted to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority shareholder’s interest in the corporation by bringing a claim of shareholder oppression under § 11.404 of the Texas Business Organizations Code (TBOC), the Texas receivership statute.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal will consider an interesting insolvency case involving hog feed suppliers who claim of priority for the cost of feed over Farm Credit Canada and Bank of Montreal, the hog producer’s secured creditors. 

In general, the Court found Suppliers may have an unjust enrichment claim arising from an alleged fraud on the part of producer, who allegedly ordered feed while preparing for the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) application with no intention of paying for the feed.

For some, environmental liability is akin to a game of hot potato. In other words, no one wants to be the one left holding the potato when the music stops playing - otherwise they could be facing significant obligations to remedy contaminated lands. As remediation costs can be significant, owners, purchasers and creditors must tread carefully when dealing with contaminated real estate.

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.

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.