In the recent case of Re I. Waxman & Sons Limited (“Waxman”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the treatment in Canada of the doctrine of equitable subordination. Developed in American jurisprudence, the doctrine permits the claims of one creditor to be subordinated to the claims of another or other creditors of equal rank if circumstances warrant, on the basis of the equitable jurisdiction of the court.

Second and third time personal bankruptcies are uncommon, but fourth time bankruptcies are so rare they deserve recognition. The Supreme Court of British Columbia was recently presented with one such instance when Mr. Douglas Kusch applied for a discharge from his fourth bankruptcy.

In the Spring of 2007, Canada’s Parliament amended several federal insolvency statutes so as to transfer the definition of the class of protected contracts known as “eligible financial contracts” (EFCs) from the federal insolvency statutes themselves to their respective associated regulations. On November 15, the Treasury Board approved the finalized regulations to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.

Should Lenders be Concerned?

In the United States, claims for “deepening insolvency” have been advanced against lenders and investment bankers to insolvent companies as well as against the officers and directors of insolvent companies. Experience suggests that developments in U.S. commercial laws tend to be imported north of the border.1 Accordingly, lenders should be aware of the existence of the theory of deepening insolvency and the risk of creditors attempting to use it in Canada.

What is Deepening Insolvency?

2007 BCSC 267 (B.C. Supreme Court, Feb. 28, 2007)

Trustee in bankruptcy must affirm swap contracts to take advantage of them but is not personally liable if the contracts end up being out of the money - While contract gave buyer a termination right on bankruptcy, it could choose not to exercise this option and leave it to the trustee to decide whether or not to affirm the swap and take the risk that the estate will end up out of the money

In certain circumstances the official liquidator of a Cayman company may be able to take action to recover assets which have been transferred in the run up to the company's insolvency. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a Cayman company in the twilight of insolvency to be aware of the statutory powers available to the official liquidator and the Grand Court in the Cayman Islands.

Voidable preferences

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey recently held that a Cayman Islands collateralized-debt obligation issuer (“CDO”) could be a debtor under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and declined to dismiss an involuntary case commenced against the CDO by certain noteholders on the grounds that the notes held by such noteholders were “non-recourse” notes. Below is a discussion of the court’s decision and its potential implications. The decision is currently being appealed.

Cayman Islands Court of Appeal, Unreported judgment given 9 September 2009.

As a matter of English and Cayman law, does the court have jurisdiction to appoint a receiver, at the behest of a judgement creditor, by way of equitable execution over a settlor’s power of revocation of a trust?

Facts

China Lumena New Materials Corp (in provisional liquidation) [2020] HKCFI 338 (decision made on 23 January 2020 and reasons given on 4 March 2020)

This is the first reported scheme of arrangement in Hong Kong seeking to compromise debt governed by PRC law. Under the Gibbs Rule, a foreign composition does not discharge a debt unless it is discharged under the law governing the debt. In this case, the Hong Kong Court considered an exception to the Gibbs Rule and more generally the principles of sanctioning a scheme.

Background

实践中，往往会出现在执行过程中，作为被执行人的公司注销的情形。注销是《公司法》规定的使公司实体灭失的一种方式，注销后，该实体将不再存在，依照相关程序法的规定，作为被执行人的公司灭失后，将依法终结诉讼。负债公司多以注销当幌子，进行逃避到期债务之实。在作为被执行人的公司注销，而公司账面仍有剩余财产的情况下，债权人应如何使自己的到期合法债权得到清偿?下面请看一则案例。

　　【案例】

　　李某、刘某、朱某原是北京XX有限公司员工。因公司无故拖欠工资，三人向北京市东城区劳动争议仲裁委员会提起仲裁，要求XX公司支付工资及补偿金。仲裁委于2008年8月1日裁决XX公司支付债权人双倍工资、加班费、补偿金，其中应当支付李某2.2余万元、支付刘某2.1余万元、支付朱某1.6余万元。

　　该裁决生效后，三债权人于2008年8月22日申请法院强制执行。在执行过程中发现XX公司已于2008年8月25日向工商部门申请注销，并提交了清算报告，三位股东正是清算组成员。清算报告中称没有未完结的债权债务关系。公司账面剩余财产为7.5万元，三位股东就出资额对该剩余财产进行了分配。工商部门遂于2008年9月20日核准了清算组注销XX公司的申请，导致法院无法强制执行。

　　很显然，在上述案例中，债权人可以要求三位股东承担清偿责任。理由如下：