On 7 November 2014, the Government released the draft Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2014, with key changes proposed to be put in place by 30 June 2015.
On 4 September 2014, the Government introduced the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 to the House of Representatives (Bill). The Bill is intended to amend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth) so as to limit the entitlements payable by the Government to those employees made redundant due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer.
Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act1, trustees have considerable discretion to administer a bankrupt’s estate in an expedient manner. However, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently confirmed that trustees must exercise such discretion within the limits of relevant statutory provisions and common law principles.
I. Introduction
Canadian restructuring and liquidation legislation provides struggling companies and bankruptcy trustees with powerful tools to restructure their affairs and maximize value for stakeholders. For example, in the right circumstances valuable contracts can be assigned, on notice to the counterparties, to buyers prepared to pay well for the rights conferred under the contracts. In such circumstances, the counterparty’s bargained for right to withhold its consent to an assignment can be effectively overridden by court order.
The recent decision of Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 involves a significant development in the taxation collection obligations of liquidators involved in winding up a company.
In this Alert, Special Counsel Justin Byrne and Solicitor Rachael Nyst discuss the implications of the case in regard to the need to retain an amount from sale proceeds of a property in order to meet capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities.
Key points
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.