GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

Re Friedman (2008), 49 C.B.R. (5th) 131 (Ont. S.C.J. in bankruptcy)

Mr. Friedman assigned his rights to royalties he would receive from SOCAN, the Canadian copyright collective that administers royalties for tis members, to his music publisher, to secure loan advances to him from the publisher.

Resin Systems Inc. v. Global Composite Manufacturing Inc., [2008] O.J. No. 5427, (Ont. S.C.J., Commercial List)

Resin developed certain equipment used to manufacture transmission poles. Resin entered into a manufacturing and licence agreement with Global Composite, and leased the equipment to Global Composite to make and improve the product. The agreements provided Global Composite was to keep the equipment free of any lien or claim, unless there was the express written consent of Resin.

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.

The Companies (Amendment) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) provides the statutory framework for petitioning the High Court for the appointment of an examiner to a company and providing the company concerned with a certain level of protection from its creditors. In practice, a significant issue which often arises is the enforceability of the provisions of a guarantee in the context of an examinership. The purpose of this article is briefly to look at the enforceability of a guarantee both during the period of protection and once it ends.  

DURING THE EXAMINERSHIP

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This expression is particularly apt when it comes to secured creditors and their registrations under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the “PPSA”). Although “getting it right the first time” has always been the mantra of secured creditors, the economic roller coaster ride of recent months has heightened the need to ensure a properly perfected secured claim.

These are hard times for business. In an era of falling asset values and tight trading conditions, some firms may be facing paper losses or technical insolvency. In the fight for survival, applying for examinership is one way they can avoid being forced into a 'fire sale' of their assets. But, as Andrew Gill explains, timing is critical.

The first anniversary of the credit crunch passed in recent weeks and the economic turbulence in this country has been reflected in the sharp increase in the number of insolvencies over the past 12 months.

INTRODUCTION

Many practitioners may not think of stamp duty as a particular risk when taking on a liquidation or a receivership and there is limited published guidance on the topic. Against a background of an increasing number of business failures including companies operating in property development it is likely that liquidators and receivers will be faced with stamp duty issues on a more frequent basis. The purpose of this article is to identify some areas where practitioners may encounter stamp duty issues.

PROOF OF TITLE

Under the Companies Acts, the liquidator of every insolvent company is obliged to bring a court application to have the insolvent company’s directors restricted from acting as director or secretary of any other company for a period of five years unless that other company has a paid-up share capital of approximately €63,500. The relevant provision of the Companies Acts (Section 150) applies to any person who was a director of the insolvent company either at the date of or within 12 months of the start of the company’s winding-up. Section 150 also applies to shadow directors.