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.

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

The Czech Supreme Court recently issued two decisions having significant impact on the position of secured creditors (i.e. generally financial institutions) within insolvency proceedings. Both decisions stem from one of the first major insolvencies conducted under the (then new) Czech Insolvency Act effective from 2008 in respect of the group of companies in a glass-making business. This article briefly reviews those decisions and points out their practical effects on the rights of secured creditors.

Security interest in rental income

Section 163 gives the trustee the broad power to examine the bankrupt, any person who would be reasonably thought to know the affairs of the bankrupt, or any person who is or has been an agent, clerk, officer, director or employee with respect to the bankrupt or the bankrupt’s dealings. Essentially, this section gives the trustee the power to examine any person who is capable of providing information on the bankrupt.

On February 10, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a memorandum decision addressing whether the alleged holder of a mortgage loan had sufficient status as a secured creditor to seek relief from the automatic stay to pursue a foreclosure action.1 After resolving the primary issue in controversy on purely procedural grounds and granting the requested relief, the Court analyzed whether an entity that acquires its interest in a mortgage loan through an assignment from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Introduction

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last month in Century Services Inc. v. Canada1 is of striking interest to the tax and insolvency bars. The Court considered Crown priorities, in particular, the various “deemed trust” provisions found in section 227 of the Income Tax Act (Canada),2 section 86 of the Employment Insurance Act,3 section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”)4 and in particular section 222 of the Excise Tax Act (GST Portions).5

In the recent decision of Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada has, for the first time, interpreted key provisions of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

The judgment of the Court, which was pronounced December 16, 2010, overrules appellate authority from Ontario and British Columbia that previously conferred a priority for unremitted GST on the Crown in CCAA proceedings, and endorses the broad discretionary power of a CCAA court.

On March 22, 2010, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a debtor may proceed with an auction sale under a Chapter 11 plan without providing a secured lender the right to credit bid for its collateral.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that bankruptcy trustees, receivers and secured creditors can continue to collect the full amount of accounts receivable of a bankrupt supplier, including the Goods and Services Tax (GST) component, even if an amount remains owing by the supplier to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).

Vanquish Oil & Gas (“Vanquish”), now in receivership, was a trustee under a joint operating agreement for an oil well. It was required to remit 45% of the well’s net production proceeds to a proportional owner - either Karl Oil and Gas Ltd. or Choice Resources Corporation (who disputed the entitlement at the time).