The Alberta Court of Appeal recently ruled on a case1 dealing with the priority of claims to the bank accounts of a petroleum operator which had gone into receivership, where the operatorship was governed by the 1990 CAPL Operating Procedure. The operator had failed to pay to the non-operators revenues of approximately $300,000, having only $58,000 left in the commingled account. The Operating Procedure imposes a trust on the production revenues but also expressly allows intermingling of these funds with the operator's general funds.

In theMatter of Forest and Marine Financial Corporation (2009) BCCA 319, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was called upon to consider whether a limited partnership qualifies for protection under the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The Court also considered whether, in the circumstances of the case, a stay of proceedings should have been issued with respect to the limited partnership.

Radius Credit Union Limited v. Royal Bank of Canada [2009] S.J. No. 148, 2009 SKCA 36, on appeal from
2007 SKQB 472

1992: Farmer Wayne Hingtgen (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Radius
Credit Union Limited (“CU”) granting a security interest on all his present and after
acquired assets.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

Innovation Credit Union v. Bank of Montreal [2009] S.J. No. 147; 2009 SKCA 35, on appeal from 2007 SKQB 471

October 1991:     Saskatchewan farmer James Buist (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Innovation Credit Union (“CU”). The general security agreement was not perfected under the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) by registration.

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal has rationalized the approach to be taken by Courts in considering appeals in CCAA cases.

The recent economic turmoil has brought to the forefront concerns by licensees as to what happens to their rights to licensed intellectual property upon the bankruptcy of a licensor. Unfortunately, under Canadian law, the answer to that question is not clear.

Background

In Stomp Pork Farm Ltd., Re, (“Stomp Park Farm”) the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal partially overturned orders granted from the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench which approved debtor in possession financing (“DIP Financing”).

In this case, the debtor owed its first lender $20.5 million, secured against the debtor’s current assets. The lender had priority over the current assets to the extent of $18 million and thereafter shared priority with the debtor’s second lender.

In Re Norame Inc. (2008), 90 O.R. (3d) 303(Ont. C.A.), the Ontario Court of Appeal was again called upon to consider various issues of importance to insolvency practitioners. In a decision released on April 28, 2008, Mr. Justice LaForme delivered the judgment for the Court of Appeal and in so doing dismissed the appeal of Paddon + Yorke Inc., in its capacity as trustee in bankruptcy of Norame Inc. (the "Trustee").

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.