One of the primary reasons why people declare bankruptcy is that upon being discharged, the bankrupt person is released from their obligation to repay most of the debts that had existed at the time they went bankrupt. I say most because there are certain exceptions to this rule, debts that the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Actitemizes as debts not released by an order of discharge.

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.

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.

Summary and implications

This note provides a short summary of receivership and covers some of the most frequently asked questions. The note is intended to be a general overview and specific advice should be taken in individual cases.

The appointment of a receiver is one of the formal enforcement options typically available to lenders who have security over property assets situated in England and Wales. The receiver’s job is to realise those assets and use the proceeds to discharge the debt due to the charge-holder.

This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.

The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation into plans to restructure the Royal Mail.

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?”

On 17 May 2011, the GC annulled a Commission decision requiring recovery of state aid from Polish steel producer Technologie Buczek (TB). The case concerned the actions taken by the Polish authorities in implementing a plan to restructure the steel industry. The GC found that the Commission had been correct to find that TB had benefited from a decision by the Polish authorities not to apply for bankruptcy but to allow the company to continue to operate without repaying its debts.