In May 2015, I wrote an article about the conflicting lower court decisions in Raithatha –v- Williamson and Horton –v- Henry, concerning undrawn pension entitlements and income payment orders. The Court of Appeal has now finally handed down its long expected Judgment.

The challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.

In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.

When someone is made bankrupt, their interest in the family home vests automatically in their Trustee in Bankruptcy, upon his or her appointment. The Trustee has 3 years from the date of the bankruptcy order to realise this interest. The Trustee will first of all ask if a third party is willing and able to purchase the Trustee’s share, usually 50% of the available equity. If that is not possible, then the Trustee will request that the property is put on the market for sale. As a last resort, the Trustee can apply to the Court for an order for possession and sale of the property.

Under the insolvency legislation, any dispositions of property or payments made by a company after it has been presented with a winding up petition are void, unless validated by the Court.

In the recent unreported decision of Alberta Treasury Branches v. Northpine Energy Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta authorized a disposition of a debtor’s assets by a receiver immediately upon appointment and without being forced to conduct a marketing process within the receivership proceedings.

On April 14, 2016, the priority of statutory trust protections afforded to subcontractors and suppliers under Alberta’s lien legislation was strengthened: the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal in Iona Contractors Ltd. v. Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 ABCA 240, thereby bolstering the priority of the trust even in the face of a bankrupt general contractor.

Both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”)[1] and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act[2] stay actions and remedies as against debtors.

Section 11.4 of the CCAA requires that persons identified as critical suppliers to a debtor company continue to provide goods and services on terms and conditions with the existing supply relationship.

We are currently still in a lot of unknown territory; so how will our exit from the EU affect Debts here in the UK, in Europe and in other countries?

Once the UK finalises the exit from the EU, any debts someone may have in the EU will fall into the category of similar non-EU debts in other countries, such as the United States. Whilst you can include those debts in a UK bankruptcy you are only afforded the protection from them in the UK.