The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada1 ("Saulnier"), an important case involving fishing licences in the context of a secured lending transaction and an assignment in bankruptcy. This case contains what we believe is significant commentary on classifying certain governmental licences as "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") and "personal property" under the Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) (the "Nova Scotia PPSA").

In the recent decision of Re Rieger Printing Ink Co., Justice Pepall of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) considered the right to protection against selfincrimination in a Section 163 examination conducted under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA").

The 22nd of April 2009 brings in significant changes to rules relating to arrestment and actions of furthcoming. The Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 (Commencement No. 4, Savings and Transitionals) Order 2009 brings into force Section 10 of the 2007 Act which inserts Part 3A into the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. The provisions coming into effect include:

On 22nd April 2009, some significant changes to debt recovery legislation are due to come into force, affecting the procedures relating to inhibitions in Scotland. The provisions are a further step in the implementation of changes which are designed to make the debt recovery process more 'user friendly'. Part 5 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007 brings about the following changes/clarifications:

In April 2008 the Bankruptcy & Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 ("the Act") introduced a new regime for obtaining permission for (and recalling) diligence on the dependence of a court action (i.e. arrestment and inhibition). In terms of the Act, before granting (or recalling) warrant for diligence, the court must be satisfied that:

With administrations and liquidations on the rise, companies may well-find that they occupy premises under a sub-lease where their immediate landlord has become insolvent and we look at their rights and how the position differs north and south of the border.

Pre-pack sales continue to attract attention and create controversy. A pre-pack occurs when a deal is agreed for the sale of the business and assets of a struggling company prior to formal insolvency proceedings being instigated. The purchase is effected upon the appointment of the insolvency practitioner and the purchaser is very often a vehicle in which the directors/shareholders have a stake.

The purchase of off-site materials has always been an area fraught with risk for contractors and employers; even more so with the increasing threat of supplier insolvency.

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.

On 15 August 2008, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its reasons for judgment in Cliffs Over Maple Bay Investments Ltd. v. Fisgard Capital Corp. (CA036261). Tysoe J.A., for the court, said that a CCAA stay of proceedings “should not be granted or continued if the debtor company does not intend to propose a compromise or arrangement to its creditors.” CCAA filings designed to permit a debtor company to carry on business and to run a sales process for the sale of all or a substantial portion of the debtor company’s business is relatively common.