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 threat of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor can greatly assist a creditor's primary objective of getting paid, preferably in advance of everyone else. This is particularly so where the debtor is prevaricating but there is no genuine dispute that the sum in question is due and owing. Although the courts decry the use of the winding-up procedure as a means of debt collection, it is often a very effective tool.

Consider the following when faced with a corporate debtor who is refusing, without genuine reason, to settle its debts:

Lenders and secured creditors often require that debtor-customers direct all receivable collections into a lockbox, hoping to wrangle any available proceeds to apply to their debtors’ outstanding debt. In requiring a debtor or its customer to remit payments to a lockbox, however, creditors may be overlooking a potential source of significant liability. A creditor using a lockbox may unwittingly expose itself to greater risk and liability than just a debtor’s default if it receives funds that were collected as sales tax on a debtor’s goods or services.

The enactment of Law 1676 of 2013 (Secured Interest Law) in the context of insolvency proceedings − reorganization and liquidation − has substantially restated the legal scope of creditors’ rights in at least three aspects: (i) the existence or not of a new creditor type; (ii) the compatibility of that possible new type of creditor and the current system of creditors hierarchy, and (iii) the specific rights of that new creditor, should there be one, in creditors arrangement proceedings.

(i) Is the secured creditor a new type of creditor?

Certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, which became effective on December 1, 2017, impose affirmative obligations on secured creditors to protect the right to distribution in a bankruptcy case. Specifically, Rule 3002(a) now requires a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in order to gain allowance for a secured claim.

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

MARY BUTTERY WINS IMPORTANT CASE FOR CENTURY SERVICES INC.

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:

A Chapter 11 debtor’s financial advisers were entitled to a “Success Fee” based on a percentage of a $50-million “debt-to-equity conversion,” held a split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 4, 2016. In re Valence Technology, Inc., 2016 WL 2587109, *1 (5th Cir. May 4, 2016) (2-1). Key to the opinion was the parties’ concession that the “debt-to-equity conversion qualified as a Private Placement under [their] engagement agreements.” Id., at n.1.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on July 9, 2007, decisively affirmed a bankruptcy court's dismissal of an equitable subordination complaint filed by a creditors' committee against eight investment fund lenders. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Applied Theory Corporation v. Halifax Fund, L.P., et al. (In re Applied Theory Corporation), ___ F.3d ___, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16180 (2d Cir. July 9, 2007).