The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.
On July 7, 2008 specific provisions of the Insolvency Reform Act, 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act, 2007 were proclaimed into force by Order in Council. As a result, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) and certain related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) have come into immediate effect.
Certain of those amendments are intended to protect current and former employees of insolvent companies and will affect lenders to insolvent businesses.
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:
In Warren v. Warren the British Columbia Supreme Court recently appointed an equitable receiver over the assets of a judgment to debtor, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not have any security.
Fourth-time personal bankruptcies come along so rarely that they deserve special recognition. The Supreme Court of British Columbia was recently presented with one such instance when Mr. Thomas Boivin ("Boivin") applied for a discharge from his fourth bankruptcy.
Over the course of about thirty years, Boivin's use of credit left creditors with total debts of approximately $834,000.
On December 23, 2007, the Pan-Canadian Investors Committee for Third-Party Structured Asset-Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) announced that an ‘agreement in principle’ had been reached for a restructuring of $33 billion of approximately $35 billion of Canadian ABCP. The repayment of this debt had been frozen pursuant to a standstill created by the ‘Montreal Accord’ as of August 16, 2007.
In Re Temple City Housing Inc.; Minister of National Revenue v. Temple City Housing Inc. 2007 CarswellAlta 1806 (Alta. Q.B.), Temple City Housing Inc. (“Temple”) filed for protection under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The Order sought by Temple contemplated that a Debtor-In-Possession credit facility (“DIP Charge”) would be granted. Temple’s major creditor, Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), opposed the granting of the DIP Charge, which would create a court ordered priority over the CRA deemed trust claim.
Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta as the Receiver and Manager of an Alberta Corporation named Klytie’s Development Inc., its Colorado subsidiary, and the two primary shareholders of the debtor companies
Typically, courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that the courts can adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (the "Act").
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.