In the High Court decision of Jackson v Baker Tilly (unreported, 10 April 2014), the liquidators of an insolvent company successfully applied for the company's accountants to produce documents detailing their dealings with the company.

In a recent edition of Fully Secured (September 29, 2011 – Volume 2, No. 3), the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Indalex Limited was discussed, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal held that a statutory deemed trust claim arising out of a pension plan wind-up deficiency ranked in priority to debtor in possession (“DIP”) financing.

There have been several recent developments with respect to this decision since the date of that publication.

The case of Bulbinder Singh Sandhu (trading as Isher Fashions UK) v Jet Star Retail Limited (trading as Mark One) (in administration) highlights that care needs to be taken to ensure that Retention of Title (RoT) clauses are effective. More information on ROT clauses is available in our 'Litigation survival guide - part 3. Retention of title: sellers beware!'

The facts

The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.

Secured creditors with an unsecured shortfall cannot claim a share of the prescribed part of the floating charge realisations set aside for unsecured creditors under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986. This applies whether the secured creditor is the holder of a fixed or a floating charge (or both).

A trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for sale of a property owned jointly by the bankrupt and his wife, the claimant. The claimant, who suffered chronic ill health, resided in the property. She also jointly owned another property with her brother, and in order to suspend orders for possession and sale of the matrimonial property, offered charges over that other property. This was not accepted by the trustee on the basis that the husband’s creditors would be unlikely to receive payment in the near future.

In a decision released on March 11, 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal provided reassurance for those in the construction industry of the effectiveness of section 9(1) of the Construction Act, RSO c C.30 (“CA”) in insolvency proceedings. This decision did not overturn the previous decision rendered in Re Veltri Metal Products Co (2005), 48 CLR (3d) 161 (Ont CA) (“Veltri”); rather, the Court of Appeal distinguished the two cases on the facts.

On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal of Quebec released its decision in the matter of Callidus Capital Corporation and al. v.9354-9186 Québec Inc. (formerly Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc.).

Registering a financing statement under the Ontario PPSA[1] to perfect a security interest is a key means of protecting a secured creditor’s priority over collateral. It is important for secured creditors to be cognizant however that there are situations where other claims that are not subject to traditional registration requirements may still trump a secured creditor’s registered security interest.

This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:

Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended

The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.