In Meunerie B.L. inc., Re (2007), EYB 2007-126274, 2007 QCCA 1601 (Que. C.A.) affirming (2006), EYB 2006-109274, 2006 QCCS 4914 (Que. S.C.) Meunerie B.L. Inc. (“Meunerie”) made an assignment in accordance with the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). At the time of bankruptcy Meunerie was a mill which processed corn purchased from corn producers. Corn that was delivered to Meunerie was stored on site in silos

2007 BCSC 267 (B.C. Supreme Court, Feb. 28, 2007)

Trustee in bankruptcy must affirm swap contracts to take advantage of them but is not personally liable if the contracts end up being out of the money - While contract gave buyer a termination right on bankruptcy, it could choose not to exercise this option and leave it to the trustee to decide whether or not to affirm the swap and take the risk that the estate will end up out of the money

Should Lenders be Concerned?

In the United States, claims for “deepening insolvency” have been advanced against lenders and investment bankers to insolvent companies as well as against the officers and directors of insolvent companies. Experience suggests that developments in U.S. commercial laws tend to be imported north of the border.1 Accordingly, lenders should be aware of the existence of the theory of deepening insolvency and the risk of creditors attempting to use it in Canada.

What is Deepening Insolvency?

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a Cayman Islands collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) could be a debtor under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and declined to dismiss an involuntary case commenced against the CDO by certain noteholders on the grounds that the notes held by such noteholders were “non-recourse” notes. Below is a discussion of the court’s decision and its potential implications. The decision is currently being appealed.

In Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund, Ltd.,1 the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York refused to allow the foreign representatives of two Bear Stearns funds2 to institute ancillary proceedings under new chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. There, Judge Lifland held that, even though the Funds were in liquidation proceedings in the Cayman Islands, those proceedings constituted neither “foreign main” nor “foreign non-main” proceedings for purposes of the U.S.

The failed bid of liquidators for two hedge funds affiliated with defunct investment firm Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., to obtain recognition of the funds’ Cayman Islands winding-up proceedings under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was featured prominently in business headlines during the late summer and fall of 2007.

The Exempted Limited Partnership (Amendment) Law, 2009, which was enacted in March 2009 and is expected to come into effect before the end of April 2009, has made significant changes to the regime for the winding up and dissolution of exempted limited partnerships (“Partnerships”). The opportunity has also been taken to clarify certain other provisions of the Exempted Limited Partnership Law (2007 Revision) (“ELP Law”).  

Winding Up and Dissolution  

Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, Unreported judgment given 9 September 2009.

As a matter of English and Cayman law, does the court have jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, at the behest of a judgement creditor, by way of equitable execution over a settlor’s power of revocation of a trust?

Facts

In recent years, with the large increase in the number of enterprise bankruptcy cases, the instances of the legal representative or directors, supervisors and/or senior executives of a bankrupt enterprise (collectively, “senior officers”) being sued by the administrator or creditors have become common. In light of such laws as the Company Law, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, etc., and typical cases in judicial practice, such senior officers chiefly face the following risks:

This article was first published in the Global Restructuring Review, 14 Jan 2020.