Section 147 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) provides that the Superintendent’s Levy is applied to defray the supervisory expenses of the Superintendent, will be charged on dividend payments made by the trustee.

The U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination (as now set out in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) allows a U.S. court to subordinate all or part of a creditor's claim to the claims of other creditors if the creditor has engaged in inequitable conduct that gives the creditor an unfair advantage or is injurious to the other creditors. Will the Canadian courts apply the doctrine?

In Seeley (Trustee of) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2008), the Bankruptcy Court determined that the Superintendent’s Levy was payable on the amount paid to a secured creditor by a Trustee in bankruptcy.The bankrupt made an assignment into bankruptcy. He owned a cabin which was mortgaged to the Bank.

The Trustee sent the Bank three notices requiring it to file proof of its security. The Bank did not respond.The cabin was sold and subsequently the Bank filed a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy.

In Kerr Interior Systems Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta discussed a number of issues which arose as a result of two creditors registering builders liens against a third party’s property in Saskatchewan.

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