A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.

The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.

In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.

The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.

The law is now clear. Or is it?

For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.

If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?

Encrypted digital currencies (“cryptocurrencies”),1 particularly Bitcoin, have recently become the target of enormous international speculation and market scrutiny. Some expect cryptocurrency payments and other transactions tracked via distributed ledger technology (“DLT”, of which “blockchain” technology is one example) to be the future of commercial interaction. The theory is that cryptocurrencies could become “the holy grail of commerce – a payment system that would eliminate or minimize the roles of third party intermediaries.”2

An equipment finance company finances the purchase of a truck and registers a purchase-money security interest (a “PMSI”) pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) to protect its interest. The truck breaks down and is taken in for repairs. While the truck is in the shop, the debtor defaults under its lending arrangements with the equipment finance company.

In a January 31, 2018 decision from the bench in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada v. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. (Court File No. CV-14-10784-00CL) (“A-1 Asphalt”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) held that the deemed trust provisions of subsection 8(1)(a) of the Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) were not, on their own, sufficient to create a trust recognized in a contractor’s bankruptcy or proposal proceedings.

Until a court orders otherwise, a monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act is a neutral party and may not take sides in favour of one stakeholder over another.

Secured creditors have taken note and expressed concern regarding a recent decision from the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA”), which has upended conventional wisdom regarding the priority and treatment of GST/HST arrears in a bankruptcy. In Canada v.

In a September 19, 2017 decision from the bench in the matter of Bank of Montreal v. Kappeler Masonry Corporation, et. al.1 (“Kappeler Masonry”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) confirmed that commingling of construction project receipts in a receiver’s estate account is fatal to a Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) trust claim in the face of a debtor’s bankruptcy.

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.

It is common practice for company contracts to contain clauses, known as “ipso facto” clauses, which terminate or amend the contract (e.g. by accelerating payments) merely because a company has entered into a formal insolvency process.