Secured Creditor’s Priority Over Unremitted GST/HST: SCC Grants Callidus Capital Corporation Leave to Appeal

On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.

On March 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Callidus Capital Corporation (the “Secured Creditor”) leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision that interpreted subsection 222(3) of the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (the “ETA”) as giving the Crown super priority to property received by a secured creditor from a tax debtor before bankruptcy.

Le 22 mars 2018, la Cour suprême du Canada a accordé à Callidus Capital Corporation (le « créancier garanti ») l’autorisation d’interjeter appel de la décision de la Cour d’appel fédérale dont l’interprétation du paragraphe 222(3) de la Loi sur la taxe d’accise (Canada) (la « LTA ») donne à la Couronne la priorité absolue sur les biens reçus par un créancier garanti d’un débiteur fiscal avant la faillite.

The High Court will consider the validity of “holding” deed of company arrangements (commonly known as “holding DOCAs”) under the Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act (theAct).

1. Section 90K(1)(aa) of theFamily Law Act1975 (Cth) provides that a court may set aside a financial agreement if the court is satisfied that a party to the agreement entered into the agreement for purposes including the purpose of defrauding or defeating creditors, or with reckless disregard to the interests of the creditors.

In certain circumstances, liquidators may be at risk of personal exposure to costs orders in litigation. 

The court’s approach to the making of costs orders against liquidators depends on (amongst other things) whether the liquidator is a named party to the proceedings, whether the liquidator is commencing or defending proceedings, and whether the liquidator has acted ‘improperly’ or unreasonably in the commencement, maintenance or defence of the action.

Proceedings commenced by the liquidator / company in liquidation

On 19 October 2017, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by the Commonwealth Government in order to reduce the default period of bankruptcy from three years down to just one year. The stated objective of the Bill is “to foster entrepreneurial behaviour and reduce the stigma associated with bankruptcy whilst maintaining the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement frameworks for the personal insolvency regime.”

Earlier this year, we wrote here about the decision in I.D.H. Diamonds NV v Embee Diamond Technologies Inc., 2017 SKQB 79, where Mr. Justice Layh held:

We are now past the second tranche of changes under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), comprised most importantly of Part 3 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) (containing the General Rules relating to external administrations) which came into effect on 1 September 2017.

Part 3 of the IPS will apply to external administrations that start on or after 1 September 2017.

1. On 18 September 2017 the Treasury Law Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act) became law.
2. The Safe Harbour reforms introduced in the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency processes.