Bankruptcy trustees should clearly communicate to the bankrupt their intent to make a claim against the non-exempt equity in the bankrupt's property at the time of the assignment into bankruptcy, according to the recent decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in Re Barter.1 A failure to communicate such an intent may result in the trustee being unable to realize the non-exempt equity or, as in Re Barter, the absolute discharge
In the recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Orion Industries Ltd. (Trustee of) v Neil's General Contracting Ltd.1("Orion Industries") the Court interpreted and applied the rule added as part of the 2009 amendments to section 95(2) of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") which deals with preferential payments. That amendment provides that evidence of pressure by a creditor is inadmissible to support a preferential payment.
InRe Bock inc.1, a recent case decided under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"), the Superior Court of Quebec made an order reviving a dealership agreement that was purported to be validly terminated by the manufacturer prior to the commencement of any insolvency proceedings.
On June 1, 2013, British Columbia's new Limitation Act (the "New Act")1 came into force, changing the limitation periods for filing civil lawsuits in British Columbia.
Government bonds were long considered a safe investment that offered the potential for high returns. However, after Argentina announced in 2002 that it would no longer service its bond debt and after Greece restructured its sovereign debt in March and December 2012, the question arises as to what investors can do to avoid the significant losses of capital (up to 70% in case of Argentina and over 80% in case of Greece) which almost always accompany sovereign debt restructurings.
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) continued with its extensive interpretation of the rules for contesting transactions under insolvency law in a judgment dated 21 February 2013 (BGH IX ZR 32/12). In the case before the court, direct shareholder A in company T sold a claim under a loan to B at below par value. Following assignment, T repaid the loan to B at the nominal amount plus interest. Insolvency proceedings were opened around two months later in relation to T’s assets. The BGH’s decision covers three aspects:
A. Bill of the “Law on shielding credit institutions and financial groups against risks and planning their restructuring and winding-up”
In a recent case decided by the Federal Court of Justice (judgment of 15 November 2012 – IX ZR 169 / 11), an energy supplier had entered into a contract with a customer “which should also terminate without notice if the customer makes an application for insolvency or where preliminary insolvency proceedings are initiated or opened based on an application by a creditor”. When the customer was forced to declare insolvency, the energy supplier and the customer’s insolvency administrator entered into a new energy-supply contract at higher rates, subject to a review of the legal position.
Under the new liability standard set out in section 64 sentence 3 of the GmbHG, which was introduced by the Act to Modernise the Law Governing Private Limited Companies and to Combat Abuses (MoMiG), the managing director of a company is liable for payments to shareholders which necessarily cause the insolvency of the company. The requirement for causality of the payment for insolvency and actual determination of insolvency were matters of dispute. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now established clarity on both points (judgment of 9 October 2012 II ZR 298 / 11).
The highly anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Indalex was released this morning.
Here are the key highlights: