The significant increase in the number of companies passing into liquidation in the current economic climate has focussed Courts on whether they can summons a non-resident. Dispute Resolution Associate, Justin Le Blond, examines the position.

Often, when creditors start to take action against a debtor, the debtor will seek relief through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act(i). Some Trustees in bankruptcy even advertise that the bankruptcy process can be an important step on the road to “financial well being”. Creditors, upon receiving notice of their Debtor’s bankruptcy, may feel that the chance of any recovery all but disappears with the assignment into bankruptcy.

The High Court has further clarified the law regarding the effect of section 260-5 notices served by the Commissioner on third parties who are required to make payments to a company in liquidation.

The effect of the decision is that the Commissioner cannot issue such a notice after a company has gone into liquidation in order to give himself a priority over other creditors for payment of a tax debt. Such a notice is void.

Effectively, the High Court held that aggrieved shareholders (shareholders whose debt arises as a result of misrepresentation or improper disclosure by the company causing the shareholder to acquire shares) would be ranked equally with the debts of other unsecured creditors.

No doubt by now, every creditor knows of the new protections given to employees in the face of a company’s insolvency as a result of the enactment of the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) and related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) on July 7, 2008.

Debtor in Possession (“DIP”) financing is essentially new bridge financing that is provided to a corporation as it undergoes insolvency proceedings. The term exists because the corporation maintains possession of its assets during this process as opposed to having a bankruptcy trustee take possession. The concept derived from the United States of America where DIP financing is expressly provided for under c.11 of the Bankruptcy Code and allows a bankrupt corporation to incur new debt for the purposes of carrying on business operations.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland, has today introduced a bill in Federal Parliament to create a comprehensive national personal property securities law, to be known as the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA). The bill is the culmination of more than three years of public consultation and is a significantly revised version of an exposure draft bill that was the subject of a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in March of this year.  

Radius Credit Union Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada [2009] S.J. No. 148, 2009 SKCA 36, on appeal from
2007 SKQB 472

1992: Farmer Wayne Hingtgen (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Radius
Credit Union Limited (“CU”) granting a security interest on all his present and after
acquired assets.

Mercedes Benz Financial v. Ivica Kovacevic (Ont. SCJ)

February 26, 2009: Finding of contempt of Court: [2009] O.J. No. 783

March 3, 2009: Sentencing hearing and order of five days in jail [2009] O.J. No. 888

Mr. Kovacevic (the “Debtor”) entered into a conditional sale contract to finance a Mercedes vehicle with

Mercedes Benz Financial. After seven of forty-eight payments, he defaulted in payment. He refused to pay or return the vehicle.

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.