In Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. v. Chiang, an Order was granted in 2006 compelling the bankrupt and others to attend for an examination by the trustee under section 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In 2008, the trustee applied under the same section to examine the bankrupt and others again.

Section 163(1) of the BIA provides:

On January 6, 2012, Judge Thomas Bennett of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama (the "Court") issued a 57-page opinion in the chapter 9 bankruptcy case of Jefferson County, Alabama (the "County") on several critical jurisdictionally related issues raised by the state court appointed receiver of the County's sewer system, the indenture trustee for the special revenue warrants for the sewer system (the "Indenture Trustee") and certain other joining creditors.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that bankruptcy trustees, receivers and secured creditors can continue to collect the full amount of accounts receivable of a bankrupt supplier, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component, even if an amount remains owing by the supplier to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

In Re: IC Creative Homes Inc. (2005) Carswell BC 3157 (Master) the Bankruptcy Court had previously granted an order under section 38 of the BIA allowing a creditor of the bankrupt to commence proceedings against the bankrupt’s accounting and business advisor for alleged misconduct and negligence relating to the operations of the bankrupt prior to its bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy practitioners and plan beneficiaries should take note of a little-known ERISA amendment that impacts bankruptcy cases filed on or after September 16, 2006. On June 30, 2008, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") released a proposed rule clarifying how Section 404 ("Section 404") of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (the "PPA") will be implemented. Section 404 amends Title IV of ERISA in certain key respects.

Legal developments

When a company winds up, begins restructuring proceedings or goes bankrupt, a debtor or creditor may be able to cancel out the amount payable to the other party by using the remedy of “set‐off”. Set‐off involves the cancelling of crossliabilities between two parties who owe each other money. It is a valuable tool that can increase a creditor’s percentage of recovery and decrease the debt burden of a debtor.

Types of Set‐off: Contractual, Legal or Equitable

OFT is monitoring the lending and broking of secured loans to consumers where the loan's purpose is to annul a recent bankruptcy. It is asking for comments by 30 October from any consumers who have taken this type of loan.

On Feb. 11, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in Hutson v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co. (In re National Gas Distributors), attempting, in a matter of first impression, to define "commodity forward agreement" for purposes of eligibility for protection under the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. At first blush, this decision appears to provide the additional certainty that participants in the commodities markets require.

Pursuant to an Order in Council dated July 4, 2008, July 7, 2008 was established as the date that certain of the provisions of S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2005") and S.C. 2007, c. 36 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2007") came into force. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") as well as certain of the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") made by the Insolvency Reform Act 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act 2007 are, as a result, now in force.