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.

Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.

The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

In the continuing uncertainty of the current economic climate, and with a tough financial regime introduced by the new government, landlords may still find themselves faced with an insolvent tenant.

The law has for years tried to grapple with the Gordian Knot between protecting a debtor’s assets for realisation and distribution to his creditors and protecting third parties who enter into transactions with the debtor after the bankruptcy process has been initiated, completely unaware of that process.

CMIC Mortgage Investment Corp v Rodriguez, 2010 BCSC 308; [2010] BCJ No 425

The bankrupt farmer ran an equestrian operation. She acquired two fabric covered barns, with one anchored by solid concrete blocks resting on the ground, and the second anchored into concrete foundations.

Fairbanx Corp v Royal Bank of Canada, 2010 ONCA 385 (Ont CA), on appeal from 2009 CanLII 55376 (Ont SC)

Fairbanx factored accounts for the debtor, Friction Tecnology Consultants Inc. Fairbanx made its Ontario PPSA registration misspelling the name as Technology, with an “H”. Two years later, the debtor obtained a line of credit from the Bank, which correctly named the debtor in its Ontario PPSA registration.

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.

Able Automotive Ltd v Cameron-Okolita Inc, 2010 SKQB 34

Able brought a motion to appeal the bankruptcy Registrar’s decision that Able was a secured creditor for a certain amount, but disallowing its claim for certain costs, including insurance, a new engine for the vehicle, and storage charges, legal fees and costs.

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.