On September 18, 2009, after years of Parliamentary delay dating back to 2005, wide-ranging amendments to Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) (the “Amendments”) came into force, providing, among other things, new protections for licensees of intellectual property.

It is important to note that the Amendments only apply in the CCAA restructuring and BIA proposal context, and not to conventional bankruptcies or receiverships.

On 9 October 2009, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a judgment (file no. IV CSK 145/09), in which it ruled that the Polish legal system provides for the possibility to secure claims under a parallel debt (created under foreign law).

Facts of the case

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-anticipated decision in Quebec (Revenue) v. Caisse populaire Desjardins de Montmagny. At issue in this case (and two companion cases) was the legal characterization of Crown rights with respect to collected but unremitted GST and Quebec sales tax (QST) in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Crown is an ordinary unsecured creditor with respect to such amounts, subject to the rights of prior ranking security holders.

Summary of Facts

DSB Bank (DSB), a small Dutch lender, has been declared bankrupt on 19 October 2009. Other Dutch banks will now have to guarantee DSB's deposits. The Dutch central bank said on 19 October 2009 that it had activated the national deposit guarantee system to deal with the bankruptcy, and that it expects eligible depositors to be reimbursed by Christmas. The banks will have to pay into the guarantee system in proportion to their market share.

The shipping industry was arguably one of the hardest hit by the downturn that spread around the world late last year. The severe shipping slump, evidenced by a 93.5 per cent fall in the Baltic Dry Index between the summer of 2008 and December 2008, inevitably led to insolvencies of shipping companies across the globe1. This article briefly considers the unique challenges that insolvency practitioners face when balancing insolvency procedures against the application of maritime law.

The highly publicized announcement by Nortel Networks Corporation (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “Nortel”) of its intention to sell certain of its businesses has provided an opportunity for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to settle the state of the law in Ontario (and, hopefully, across Canada) on the sale of all or substantially all of an entity’s assets within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings.

Exposure draft legislation has been released which proposes amendments to the GST legislation to make it clear that liquidators and other representatives of incapacitated entities are liable for GST on transactions within the scope of their appointment.

Date of effect

It is proposed that the main operative provisions of the legislation have effect retrospectively from the commencement of the GST Act on 1 July 2000.

Background

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.  

In November 2008, the European Commission (EC) found state aid granted by the Polish government to two Polish state-controlled shipyards (Stocznia Szczecinska Nowa and Stocznia Gdynia), illegal under EU single market rules and requested its return to the government with accrued interest. The EC decided however to postpone the enforcement of the return of state aid for seven months until 6 June 2009 to allow for the prior public sale of the shipyards’ assets at market price.

Declining to follow a 2012 decision, the High Court has ruled that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which he was entitled within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986, and so did not form part of the bankruptcy estate.

Background