Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation

Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.

Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.

In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.

Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?

Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:

The British Columbia Court of Appeal recently released a helpful decision applying principles of discoverability to determine when a limitation period begins to run. In Roberts v. E.

If your terms of trade documents don’t have the correct provisions, you can lose goods supplied to a customer that becomes insolvent, even though you may have title to the goods.

A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for retention of title suppliers to have adequate terms of trade documents and to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to avoid losing assets if a customer becomes insolvent.

Pan Canadian Mortgage Group v. 679972 B.C. Ltd., 2013 BCSC 1078 (Pan Canadian), addresses the nature and priority of a purchaser’s lien, which, in general terms, is a financial charge that results when a purchaser pays a deposit toward the purchase price under a contract of purchase and sale.

In Ontario (Training, Colleges and Universities) v.

The recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in msi Spergel Inc. v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550 (“msi Spergel”) confirms that the Court will not suspend, extend or otherwise vary the general two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 (the “Limitations Act”) unless there is express statutory authority to do so.

During the spring of 2012, the Canadian Appeals Monitor posted a five-part series on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Van Breda, Black, and

Following a recent ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal, parties may need to proceed cautiously in enforcing contractual rights and remedies in circumstances where there is a risk of the counterparty subsequently becoming insolvent.

The common law has long recognized that a contractual provision which is explicitly and directly triggered by a party’s insolvency (and which thereby causes subsequent prejudice to the rights of the insolvent party’s creditors) may be unenforceable as a matter of public policy.