The High Court has further clarified the law regarding the effect of section 260-5 notices served by the Commissioner on third parties who are required to make payments to a company in liquidation.
The effect of the decision is that the Commissioner cannot issue such a notice after a company has gone into liquidation in order to give himself a priority over other creditors for payment of a tax debt. Such a notice is void.
Effectively, the High Court held that aggrieved shareholders (shareholders whose debt arises as a result of misrepresentation or improper disclosure by the company causing the shareholder to acquire shares) would be ranked equally with the debts of other unsecured creditors.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland, has today introduced a bill in Federal Parliament to create a comprehensive national personal property securities law, to be known as the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA). The bill is the culmination of more than three years of public consultation and is a significantly revised version of an exposure draft bill that was the subject of a report by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in March of this year.
American Bankruptcy Institute: Caribbean Symposium 2009
Introduction
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Saulnier (Receiver of) v. Saulnier has changed the basis for determining whether a licence is property under a provincial Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).
On July 7, 2008 specific provisions of the Insolvency Reform Act, 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act, 2007 were proclaimed into force by Order in Council. As a result, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) and certain related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) have come into immediate effect.
Certain of those amendments are intended to protect current and former employees of insolvent companies and will affect lenders to insolvent businesses.
The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.
Typically, courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that the courts can adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (the "Act").
In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor's assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an examination under oath before a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:
(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;
(b) the debtor's income and property;
(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;
(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;
Courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that it could adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“Act”).