In what may prove either to be a landmark decision or a mere outliner confined to its unique facts, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court of Appeal") in Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited, et al.1 has overturned an earlier decision and lifted the stay of proceedings against a court-appointed receiver to allow a union to proceed with a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the receiver.

Two recent decisions have determined the applicability of security for payment legislation to insolvent contractors. One decided that the legislation does not apply to contractors in liquidation. The other decided that the legislation can be used by bankrupt contractors. At first glance, the decisions seem to be at odds, but on closer analysis the two decisions are not inconsistent.

You may recognise the quote in the title from the film "Ron Burgundy – Anchorman" about our favourite newsreader from San Diego in the 80's. Of course he was talking about a street fight with news teams from other San Diego stations but could just as easily been talking about the seemingly sudden financial demise of the Hanjin shipping line.

A problem often faced by creditors is how to recover unsecured judgment debts. If a debtor owns real property, there is a mechanism available through the Courts to have the debt registered against the property and the sheriff's office sell the property to satisfy the judgment debt.

On 1 June 2016 the Victorian Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Timbercorp) v Collins (Collins) and Tomes (Tomes) [2016] VSCA 128, the latest in a string of Timbercorp cases.

The latest decision was preceded by a class action which went all the way to the High Court in which the investors lost their claim against Timbercorp for misleading representations.

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

Secured creditors should take note of Callidus,¹ wherein the Federal Court (the “Court”) held that the bankruptcy of a tax debtor rendered a statutory deemed trust under section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (the “ETA”) ineffective as against a secured creditor who, prior to the bankruptcy, received proceeds from the tax debtor’s assets.

Background

The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.

In Aventura², a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”), the Honourable Justice Penny confirmed that a bankruptcy trustee does not have the authority, pursuant to section 30(1)(k) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), to disclaim a lease on behalf of a bankrupt landlord. Rather, a trustee’s authority to disclaim a lease is limited to situations where the bankrupt is the tenant.