Can the Trustee in Bankruptcy claim an interest in the family home because the bankrupt is living there, even if the bankrupt is not registered on the title as an owner?

The short answer is yes: if the Trustee can prove a common intention constructive trust.

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

There were six substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal this week. There were many criminal decisions released.

In Wall v. Shaw, the Court determined that there is no limitation period to objecting to accounts in an application to pass accounts in an estates matter. A notice of objection is not a “proceeding” within the meaning of the Limitations Act, 2002.

There is a plethora of Australian legislation which sheets home personal liability to directors and officers.

Below are some reminders of traps for directors and officers for transactions that might be undertaken in the usual course of a director or officer’s normal arrangements.

Trap 1: Super re-contribution

Some advisors propose, as a strategy for limiting superannuation death benefits tax, withdrawing superannuation balances and re-contributing that amount into super as a non-concessional tax-free contribution.

The existence of trusts that may be connected to a borrower’s assets can be a lending hazard. They do not appear on PPSA search print-outs and, in many cases, they are not shown on a borrower’s financial statements and cannot be searched through traditional due diligence methods.

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “Court”) in 306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd.¹ serves as a cautionary reminder to secured creditors that their position may not always be at the top of the insolvency food chain, even when they have taken all the proper steps to perfect their security interests.

Many secured creditors see their position in absolute terms. They rely on their general security and aggressively assert their priority over unsecured creditors, such as trade creditors. However, a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal(306440 Ontario Ltd. v. 782127 Ontario Ltd. (Alrange Container Services), 2014 ONCA 548) demonstrates that creative arguments by trade creditors may allow them to take priority over even secured creditors in certain circumstances, by using trust principles to remove assets from the estate.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision inSun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6, has a number of implications for employers, pension plan administrators, as well as both secured and unsecured creditors.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers^[1]. The ruling:

Pension and insolvency lawyers have been waiting with great anticipation for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule in Indalex.  The decision was released on February 1, 2013 and represents a major statement by Canada’s top court on the intersection of pension and insolvency law.