Section 30A(1) of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) (the “BO”), provides that the bankruptcy period, for a person who has been adjudged bankrupt for the first time, runs for four years. However, section 30A(4) of the BO provides eight grounds upon which the Court, on the application of the trustee in bankruptcy or a creditor, can order the suspension of a bankruptcy period – in effect lengthening the period of bankruptcy.
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 bankrupt can be required to pay a portion of his income earned during the bankruptcy to his or her trustees by way of a contribution to the bankrupt estate. Such payments can be fixed by the court pursuant to section 43E of the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap 6 of the Laws of Hong Kong) or agreed between the bankrupt and the trustees on an informal basis, and are calculated after assessing the bankrupt's reasonable expenses.
This is a case with respect to the interpretation of the words "the applicant's entitlement to severance payment" in section 16(2)(f)(i) of the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Ordinance (the "PWIO").
Under the PWIO, the applicant may apply for an ex-gratia payment from the Protection of Wages on insolvency Fund (the "Fund") as his former employer entered into voluntary liquidation.
The relevant sections of the PWIO are set out below:-
"15(1) ......an applicant to whom:-
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.
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.
On October 3, 2013, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued two significant decisions1 on the interplay between provincial environmental remediation and federal insolvency orders. The cases are of interest to environmental and insolvency lawyers across Canada. They are equally of interest to taxpayers who foot remediation costs shifted through insolvency.
Background
An “Administration Charge” under the CCAA
The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, as amended (“CCAA”) permits a court having jurisdiction over proceedings for the restructuring of an insolvent company to make certain orders, to secure payment of the fees of certain officials involved in those proceedings, including the Monitor of the insolvent company appointed for the restructuring proceeding.
A surprising judgment re the “Administration Charge”
Punj Lloyd Ltd (PLL), the ultimate parent of Simon Carves Ltd (SCL), provided 'letters of support' (what would in North America be called 'comfort letters') indicating to the board of SCL that PLL would 'provide the necessary financial and business support to ensure that [SCL] continues as a going concern'. This is precisely what SCL did not do: it went into administration, leaving invoices unpaid and unsecured creditors largely out of luck.
Morris Kaiser’s trustee in bankruptcy, Soberman Inc., thought it smelled a rat: while claiming to be impecunious, Kaiser appeared to be living a life of ‘some means’, which included trips to casinos in the US. Kaiser claimed he was drawing advances on the credit card of a buddy, Cecil Bergman, but the trustee suspected the whole thing was a front to shield Kaiser’s assets from his creditors.