Long-awaited amendments to Canada’s insolvency legislation came into force on September 18, 2009. The amendments materially reform both of Canada’s major insolvency statutes: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). To a considerable degree the amendments codify 15 years of case law developments, but with modifications that could prove to be material in the next few years.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Saulnier (Receiver of) v. Saulnier has changed the basis for determining whether a licence is property under a provincial Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).
American Bankruptcy Institute: Caribbean Symposium 2009
Introduction
The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.
On July 7, 2008 specific provisions of the Insolvency Reform Act, 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act, 2007 were proclaimed into force by Order in Council. As a result, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) and certain related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) have come into immediate effect.
Certain of those amendments are intended to protect current and former employees of insolvent companies and will affect lenders to insolvent businesses.
Typically, courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that the courts can adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (the "Act").
Courts will only rarely and sparingly interfere with contractual rights that parties freely negotiate and agree upon.
However, in Protiva Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Inex Pharmaceuticals Corp., the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently determined that it could adjust contractual rights in order to achieve a workable plan of arrangement proposed by a company under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act (“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?
In order to get the information necessary to seize a debtor's assets or garnish his income, Rule 60.18 of the Rules of Court permit a creditor to require a debtor to attend an examination under oath before a court reporter and be questioned in relation to:
(a) the reason for non-payment or non-performance of the judgment;
(b) the debtor's income and property;
(c) the debts owed to and by the debtor;
(d) the disposal the debtor has made of any property either before or after the making of the order;