The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.
Ontario has introduced a series of significant amendments to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the PPSA). The last major amendments to the PPSA occurred in 1989. This Osler Update highlights amendments to the PPSA that are of particular interest to court officers of insolvent enterprises and others taking or enforcing security.
So, you’re a lender who has a perfected security interest in a large pile of limestone aggregate at a cement plant. Another lender has a perfected security interest in a pile of clay at that same plant. The aggregate and clay are crushed, and then ground and blended with other ingredients, before being heated in a kiln to produce a substance called “clinker”.
When a financing statement is registered to perfect a security interest in collateral, it is the responsibility of the secured party to monitor the registration to ensure that a new financing statement is filed if the goods move jurisdictions. A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice1 emphasizes this point.
Facts
- INTRODUCTION
S4 of the PPSA, provides that "except as otherwise provided" in the PPSA, the PPSA does not apply to a number of enumerated liens, charges or other interests, including as set out in s4(a) "a lien, charge or other interest given by an Act or rule of law in force in Alberta".
A recent decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench1 has raised some questions about purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) proceeds and cross-collateralization of assets secured by these types of security interests. It has been suggested that this decision is unique and establishes that using a PMSI as collateral for other indebtedness of the debtor is dangerous. But is this decision really so radical?
Facts:
In Royal Bank of Canada v. Head West Energy Inc., the Court of Appeal considered the priority of two security interest registrations against the same collateral, namely industrial camp trailers, and the obligations, pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-7 (“PPSA”) of a security holder to amend its registration to reflect a name change when the security holder has knowledge of that name change.
Banks have a recognized right to set off amounts owing by the bank to its customer (i.e. a credit balance in the customer’s bank account) against the customer’s debt to the bank. However, banks frequently wish to have the additional comfort of obtaining a security interest in the customer’s credit balance in a designated bank account. Banks frequently refer to this security as a pledge of cash collateral.
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") was unperfected as against a trustee in bankruptcy (the "Trustee"), because RBC failed to comply with section 48(3) of the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the "PPSA") by failing to file a financing change statement to reflect a change of the debtor’s name after assets of the debtor were sold by a court appointed interim receiver.