What does the U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination have to do with Canada? Superficially, the answer may be: not much. But for many financing and insolvency professionals here in Canada, there remains a palpable sense that the U.S. doctrine will eventually, if not inevitably, find its way fully across the U.S. border into Canada. So, perhaps the more appropriate response really ought to be: not much, at least not yet! It is because of this anticipation that it is worthwhile, from time to time, to summarize the central aspects of the U.S.

S271 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a bankruptcy petition may be dismissed if the court is satisfied that a debtor can pay his debt, or has made an offer to secure or compound the debt, the acceptance of which offer would lead to the petition being dismissed and that the offer has been unreasonably refused. But what is a reasonable refusal?

Restrictive covenant - if in doubt, lender should be notified; the costs risk of insolvency proceedings; interim payments; service of claim form; Wragge & Co's banking and finance experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Restrictive covenant - if in doubt, lender should be notified

The Insolvency Service (IS) has published a consultation paper on reforming debtor petition bankruptcy and early discharge from bankruptcy. The proposed reforms, which are aimed at speeding up the procedure and lowering costs, are to:

If Peter Morton and Cinitel Corp. had their way, every lender would have a distinct duty to a guarantor to permit the sale of a defaulting borrower’s assets as a going concern. In their view, a lender should be required to maximize its recovery from the borrower and to minimize any claim made on a guarantee. Fulfilling that duty would also obligate a lender to keep funding a borrower while that asset sale was negotiated and completed. It is enough to make any lender cringe.

Fortunately, the Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Morton and Cinitel’s view of the lending world.

Summary of Some of the Key Personal Insolvency Related Amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act INTRODUCTION

A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in Tallgrass¹⁰ clarifies the threshold that a company must meet when it seeks relief pursuant to the CCAA¹¹, particularly when such an application is met with a competing applicati

For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.

What are the criteria for a DRO?

A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.