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?”

The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

Introduction

Against the backdrop of the recent sheriff court decisions regarding the need to appoint a Court Reporter even in cases where the assets are insufficient to meet the IPs' fees, the Court of Session has taken an innovative approach to approving IP fees without the need to appoint a court reporter.

Background

In dealing with collateral provided by a third party to support the obligations of the prime debtor, lenders and their counsel need to remember the impact of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Ontario’s Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) was amended to broaden the definition of the word “debtor.” However, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act’s (BIA) definition of a “secured creditor” is still restricted to a person holding a charge or a lien “as security for debt due or accruing to the person (lender) holding the debt.”

Caisse populaire Desjardins de l’Est de Drummond v. Canada, 2009 SCC 29 (Can LII) (S.C.C.); on appeal from 2006 FCA 366 (Can LII)

The Caisse granted Camvrac a line of credit of up to $297,000. Camvrac deposited $200,000 with the Caisse subject to a “Security Given Through Savings” agreement (the “Savings Agreement”) and agreed:

(i) to have the $200,000 on deposit as long as the line of credit was outstanding; and

National Leasing Group Inc. v. Raymond Veterinary Clinic Ltd., [2009] A.W.L.D. 2017, 2009 ABQB 219 (Alta. Q.B.)

The Lessor leased specialized medical equipment to the corporation and three individuals as lessees. The veterinary clinic failed and closed its doors.

Innovation Credit Union v. Bank of Montreal [2009] S.J. No. 147; 2009 SKCA 35, on appeal from 2007 SKQB 471

October 1991:     Saskatchewan farmer James Buist (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Innovation Credit Union (“CU”). The general security agreement was not perfected under the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) by registration.

Philip Bell v Philip Long, Andrew Thomson, PKF and Weatherall Green & Smith (North) Limited [2008] EWHC 1273 (Ch)

Background

The receiver's duty to exercise care in disposing of the company's assets and to ensure he obtains the best price reasonably obtainable at the time of sale was considered recently in the English case of Bell v Long & Others.

The recent downturn in the economy is undoubtedly having an adverse effect on the cash flows of a large number of businesses in the UK. Businesses are keeping a much closer eye on outgoings and expenses, and may be looking to ease financial pressure by making payments due to creditors as late as possible.

For a business operating from leased premises, quarterly rental payments are likely to be one of the biggest outgoings. The longer the rental payment remains in the tenant's bank account, the more interest they will accrue and the more likely that cash flow issues will be eased.

It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.