Directors and officers of corporations are often subject to potential personal liabilities as a result of their positions. This potential for personal liability may be increased in the insolvency context, where a corporation’s creditors will seek to collect on certain debts from alternate sources, such as directors and officers. Directors and officers often utilize insurance and various court mechanisms in order to mitigate their personal liabilities.

There is growing recognition that the directors of an insolvent corporation owe a duty of care to the corporation’s creditors. Although this duty is not a fiduciary duty, the directors, in determining whether the board is acting with a view to the best interests of the corporation, may need to consider the interests of, inter alia, shareholders, employees, suppliers, creditors, consumers, governments and other stakeholders. Until recently, it was believed that the U.S. and U.K.

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.

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year in Slater Steel* exposed 10 directors, officers and employees to possible personal liability of $20 million with no meaningful recourse against the insolvent Slater Steel or its assets. This is a reminder that failure to recognize and fulfill fiduciary obligations for a pension plan can expose you to substantial personal liability.

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?

As part of an intended comprehensive amendment of German insolvency law, the German Federal Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft of a new law to facilitate the reorganization of enterprises (“Reorganization Facilitation Act”). The new law will curtail the rights of shareholders of insolvent companies and allow capital measures and other corporate measures to be taken in the insolvency of a company without the participation of the shareholders. The new regulation is of interest to investors because it will significantly simplify the purchase of the shares of an insolvent company.

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has held that a bankruptcy trustee appointed in a non-U.S. bankruptcy case did not need authority from a U.S. court to take possession and control of a foreign debtor’s assets located in the United States, and transfer them.

Section 221 of the Companies Ordinance and its predecessor sections have been with us for a very long time – its origins can be traced back to the Companies Ordinance 1865. It has been described as a vital part of the statutory insolvency regime, and there are corresponding provisions in the UK, Australia, Singapore, Canada and New Zealand. Because section 221 and its overseas equivalents have been around for so long, there is a wealth of authority on its scope and purpose.

But first, a reminder of the Court’s powers under section 221. These are:

The Dáil Public Accounts Committee has issued a report which primarily examined the loss of "Fiduciary" taxes (such as PRSI and PAYE) arising from company insolvency. The Committee concluded that there is a need in Ireland to introduce further measures to reduce the amount of Fiduciary taxes that are lost due to the irresponsible behaviour of directors. There is a need, according to the report, for the introduction of a deterrent which will make directors aware of the negative consequences which could arise for them if they wilfully evade paying the company taxes that are due.

In an important judgment published last week, the Royal Court of Jersey has provided guidance to trustees and other holders of fiduciary powers in relation to the exercise of powers when a trust is considered to be “insolvent”. Counsel in the case was unable to find any relevant authority on this subject in any other trusts jurisdiction, so this may well be one of the first cases to deal with this issue.