The Court of Appeal in England has confirmed that a Trustee in Bankruptcy (“TIB”) cannot force a bankrupt person to elect to take their uncrystallised pension benefits solely so that the TIB can recover the benefit as income for the member's creditors. The decision in Horton v Henry (2016) clarifies the legal position after previous conflicting judgements had been given by the Courts.

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

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.

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

Caines, Re, 2010 NLTD 72

The bankrupt was the holder of a commercial fishing licence. He was discharged from his bankruptcy before the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision inRoyal Bank of Canada v. Saulnier (2008), 298 D.L.R. (4th) 193, in which that Court concluded that a fishing licence was “property” for purposes of the PPSA and BIA.

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.

Significant insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in Bill C-55 which received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005 and in Bill C-12 which received Royal assent on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until September 18, 2009.

The Alberta Court of Appeal recently released its decision with respect to the appeal of Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Vanquish Oil and Gas Corporation and has rekindled discussion as to the risks associated with an Operator’s right to commingle his own general funds with trust funds held for the benefit of Joint Operators.

Facts

Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v. Karl Oil and Gas Ltd., 2009 ABCA 99, 5 Alta. L.R. (5th) 1; on appeal from 2008 ABQB 444, 96 Alta. L.R. (4th) 329.

Vanquish Oil and Gas Corp. (“Vanquish”) operated certain oil wells. Under the 1990 Canadian Association of Petroleum Landman Operating Procedure under which Vanquish operated these wells, Vanquish was to receive well revenues in trust, it could commingle revenues with its other monies, and was to pay the revenues “only to their intended use”.