It is always an interesting question as to what rights a lender has with respect to a motor vehicle owned by a consumer who becomes insolvent, and whether a secured creditor is able to seize a motor vehicle in order to satisfy an obligation due under a loan. The answer may be surprising. The recent BC Court of Appeal case, Atwal (Re) (2011 BCSC 687), highlights the rights of a debtor vis-à-vis a trustee in bankruptcy with respect to the ownership of a motor vehicle.

The EU insolvency law has resulted in insolvent debtors shopping for a better jurisdiction in which to become bankrupt.  This article examines why and how.

Why?

The EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the ECIR), came into effect in May 2002, providing a framework for the national jurisdictions to work together by recognition of each states insolvency mechanisms.  However the EC Regulation does not harmonise substantive differences in insolvency law between the subscribing nations.

Whether a lease is a “true” or “finance” lease has been debated in Canadian courts for decades in many different contexts. The consequences of the categorization of a lease can have a material impact on the recovery that a lessor may have in an insolvency of its lessee. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench recently released its decision in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. Cow Harbour Ltd. and 1134252 Alberta Ltd. (“Cow Harbour”) on January 23, 2012.

The Repair and Storage Liens Act¹ (the “RSLA”) endeavors to protect the rights of persons that maintain or increase the value of collateral though repair and/or storage services.

Lawrence Gold recently presented on abuses of the Repair and Storage Liens Act (Ontario) (“RSLA”) impacting commercial finance and insurance companies to the Ontario Personal Property Security Legislation Committee (“PPSL Committee”). As changes to the RSLA will likely not be implemented in the near future, concerns regarding abuse of lien claimant rights are of significant importance to the industry.

Arctic Glacier Income Fund (CSNX:AG.UN) (the “Fund”) has obtained creditor protection from the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench to allow its subsidiaries to continue normal operations as the Fund seeks new investors.

The Arctic Glacier Income Fund is an unincorporated, open-end mutual fund trust. The Fund's head office is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Arctic Glacier's operating subsidiaries manufacture and distribute packaged ice products in Canada and United States.

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.

The TUPE Regulations contain some provisions designed to make struggling businesses more attractive to prospective purchasers. TUPE will not apply to transfer employees, and dismissals will not be automatically unfair, where insolvency proceedings have been instituted with a view to liquidation of assets (Regulation 8(7)). However, TUPE will apply to insolvency proceedings which do not aim to liquidate assets, and employees will have unfair dismissal protection (Regulation 8(8)).

A liquidator has been appointed to supervise the winding up and sale of the assets of Union of Canada Life, one of Canada's oldest life insurance companies, by order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Union of Canada applied under the Winding Up and Restructuring Act (WURA) for a Winding Up Order and the appointment of Grant Thornton as liquidator to take possession and control of the company and conduct the sale under the protection of a stay of proceedings.

The definition of “eligible wages” under theWage Earner Protection Program Act¹ (“WEPPA”) was amended on December 15, 2011. Under the original definition, employees could claim under the wage earner protection program (“WEPP”) for payment of wages earned during either (i) the six-month period ending on the date of bankruptcy of the former employer, or (ii) the six-month period ending on the first day on which there was a receiver in relation to the former employer. The definition did not deal with CCAA or BIA restructurings.