In a challenging economy bankruptcy increasingly stands accused of constituting a mechanism for debtors to escape their responsibilities at their creditors' expense. It understandably remains a live debate as to whether a bankrupt should be afforded the means of a protected pot of money for his future use while his creditors are left unrecompensed for their loss. The debate is not new, but the balance has perhaps shifted in a climate where creditor losses are felt particularly keenly.

The BIS and Scottish Affairs Commons Select Committees have published a joint report recommending greater protection for workers when a business is faced with insolvency. The report was issued in response to the recent collapse of City Link (The impact of the closure of City Link on Employment).

In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders

Recent decisions in the Ontario courts have brought this issue to the forefront, which is salient during this time of economic uncertainty for the oil industry and its related environmental obligations. The courts have had to focus on balancing competing public interests: those of creditors and the general health and safety of the public when a debtor has an outstanding obligation to remediate its pollution.

​The doctrine of federal paramountcy provides that where there is an inconsistency between validly enacted but overlapping provincial and federal legislation, the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency and the remainder of the provincial legislation is unaffected.

A recent decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) brought to the fore the role of fairness opinions in solvent arrangement transactions. In Re ChampionIron Mines Limited (Champion) the court approved the arrangement but deemed the fairness opinion inadmissible on the basis that it failed to disclose the reasons underlying its conclusion.

Costs are the price that creditors pay for an insolvency practitioner’s (“IP”) expertise and time in dealing with a trading bankrupt or insolvent business. However, where the assets are insufficient to meet the existing debts, the imposition of a practitioner’s fees and expenses being paid out in priority can send some “over the edge” and all practitioners have the scars to prove it. This article explores the developing general principles and major pitfalls and how to avoid them.

In Susi v. Bourke, 2014 O.J. No. 11

A Summary

In Susi v. Bourke, [2014] OJ No 11, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that when all of the directors of a corporation fail to comply with their fiduciary duties, none of them can seek a remedy for oppression.