Section 38 provides a mechanism by which a creditor can take the place of the trustee in any proceeding where the trustee refuses or fails to act. Essentially, the creditor stands in the place of the trustee and, if successful in the proceeding, is entitled to keep all proceeds, except those that exceed the total of the creditor’s claim and the creditor’s costs of the proceeding. Any surplus proceeds received by the creditor are the property of the bankrupt’s estate.

The decision of the British Columbia Superior Court in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. was a result of an application for directions with respect to what amounts are properly covered by the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”).

The business community in Russia is going to see an increase in default claims due to the mounting credit crisis. Many companies will not survive in such an environment and a wave of insolvencies is likely to ensue. The prospect of this has forced the State Duma to focus on developing a robust response. New bills, which would transform the Russian insolvency landscape, are currently under consideration.

The new personal bankruptcy law enters into force on 1 October 2015

The new personal bankruptcy law enters into force on 1 October 2015. Individuals will now be allowed to go bankrupt while creditors are left to struggle. The rules have caused much apprehension and it remains to be seen how business will operate in the new environment.

One of the duties of a trustee is to examine each claim presented by a potential creditor of the
bankrupt and to determine whether such a claim is valid. A trustee is entitled, under
subsection 135(2) of the BIA, to disallow any claim, priority or security that it finds unproven or
invalid. In the event that a creditor’s claim is disallowed by a trustee, that creditor is entitled to appeal that decision to the superior court in the province. A creditor has 30 days after the
receipt of the trustee’s reasons for disallowance to file an appeal, although an extension may be

Recent changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have given certain unpaid pension plan contributions priority over a lender’s security if the employer is bankrupt or in receivership. How can a lender monitor the debtor’s pension arrears to assess the extent of the lender’s loss of priority?

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act now provides that certain unpaid pension plan claims rank ahead of a lender’s security in bankruptcy or receivership proceedings. Effective July 7, 2008, sections 81.5 and 81.6 give super-priority status to:

The business community is going to see an increase in default claims due to the mounting credit crisis. Many companies will not survive in such an environment and a wave of insolvencies is likely to ensue. The prospect of this has forced the State Duma to focus on developing a robust response. New bills, which would transform the Russian insolvency landscape, are currently under consideration.

The High Court of England and Wales has recently grappled with a lacuna in United Kingdom bankruptcy law, namely how the expenses of a trustee in bankruptcy should be dealt with where the bankruptcy order from which he derives his title is successfully overturned on an appeal of which he was not notified? The Court ultimately found that it was within its inherent jurisdiction to hold the bankrupt liable to pay the trustee's reasonable expenses. However the case highlights the gap in the United Kingdom's bankruptcy laws in failing to provide adequate guidelines in this scenario.

Armitage v Established Investments Limited (in liq) involved an appeal by an undischarged bankrupt (A), against a High Court decision imposing conditions that A was not to engage in business for three years following discharge at the end of his bankruptcy. The High Court had also ordered that the period of bankruptcy was to be extended for three years beyond the statutory three year period, although A did not challenge this aspect of the High Court decision.

In Robt. Jones Holdings Limited v McCullagh [2019] NZSC 86, the Supreme Court unanimously held that it is unnecessary for a liquidator to prove that any payment actually diminished the assets of a company to claw back that payment under s 292 of the Companies Act (Act).