Each year amendments are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The amendments address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others. The rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court and technically subject to Congressional disapproval.

Only A Few Rule Amendments This Year. Unlike previous years, there are only four rule amendments expected to take effect on December 1, 2019. Here they are:

FT ENE Canada Inc. (“FECI”) was in the nanofibre business, and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Finetex ENE Inc. (“Finetex”). As a result of insolvency difficulties separate and apart from the Canadian business, Finetex was engaged in bankruptcy proceedings in Korea (its home jurisdiction). There was animosity between Finetex and the director of FECI.

Effective November 1, 2019, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the CCAA) will, among other things, impose a requirement of good faith on all parties to proceedings (BIA and CCAA), impose an additional form of director liability (BIA), and limit the scope of relief on initial orders (CCAA).

In most trading relationships, suppliers enter into deferred payment agreements, such as instalment sales, with their retailers in order to allow retailers to stock their inventory and to manage cash flow between the delivery of goods and the resale to the customer. The possibility of default on payments or often the insolvency of a trade customer/retailer exposes the supplier to considerable risk without control of its goods and without payment. As an unsecured creditor, the supplier then stands in an unfortunate position and may never recover its goods or receive payment.

On August 30, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice handed down its decision in Doyle Salewski Inc. v Scott 2019 ONSC 5108.

Although this lengthy decision covers many topics, one of interest relates to the "appropriate means" part of the discoverability analysis when a Trustee in Bankruptcy brings a claim for unjust enrichment.

Background

On July 31, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered its decision in Ridel v. Goldberg, clarifying the interplay of the various provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002 at play in circumstances where judgment creditors are allowed to take proceedings in their own name pursuant to an order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Facts

A Big Answer To A Big Question. After dividing the courts for a number of years, we finally have the answer to the big question of whether rejection of a trademark license by a debtor-licensor deprives the licensee of the right to use the trademark. Here’s the question on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v Tempnology, LLC case:

The US Supreme Court decided what the International Trademark Association (INTA) called "the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing" when it ruled on May 20, 2019, that bankrupt companies cannot use bankruptcy law to revoke a trademark license.

In its 8-1 decision, the court resolved a circuit split by holding that a debtor's rejection of a trademark license under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to "reject any executory contract" (a contract that neither party has finished performing), amounts only to a breach of the license.

As discussed in an earlier post called “Moving Up: Bankruptcy Code Dollar Amounts Will Increase On April 1, 2019,” various dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code and related statutory provisions were increased for cases filed on or after today, April 1, 2019.

In the recent decision of Edmonton (City) v Alvarez & Marsal Canada Inc., 2019 ABCA 109, the Alberta Court of Appeal has concluded that fees and costs incurred by a court-appointed receiver should have priority over all claims by secured creditors, including special liens in favour of municipalities for unpaid property taxes. This is an important decision for the insolvency bar and provides some much needed comfort to receivers that their fees and costs will be protected by the court-ordered charge.

The Decision