MB had been the secured tenant of a property in which she lived with B, and which she had bought at a substantial discount. The property was conveyed into the joint names of MB and B as joint tenants. Although MB’s mortgage company had insisted the property be in joint names, she claimed that the intention had always been that B would only have a minimal interest in it. He had made no contribution to the purchase price, mortgage repayments or household expenses. When MB had ascertained the effect of the joint tenancy, she gave notice of severance to B.

A terminated officer of a corporate debtor, who bargained for “18 months of severance ( … $375,000 … ) to ensure that his firing not disrupt [the debtor’s] negotiations for $80 million” of financing gave the debtor “reasonably equivalent value,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on Oct. 15, 2015. In re Adam Aircraft Industries, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17930, at *27 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2015).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on Feb. 10, 2010, that a corporate debtor’s pre-bankruptcy severance payments to its former chief executive officer (“CEO”) were fraudulent transfers. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., ____ F.3d _____, 2010 BL 28145 (5th Cir. 2/10/10). Because of its holding “that the payments were fraudulent under the Bankruptcy Code,” the court did “not consider other possible violations, including [the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act] or [Bankruptcy Code] Section 547(b) [preferences].” Id. at *5.

A recent decision provides new support for excluding a broad range of severance pay from FICA taxes—a position undercut by the taxpayer’s loss in CSX Corp. v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). United States v. Quality Stores Inc., (W.D. Mich., Feb. 23, 2010), affirms a bankruptcy court’s conclusion that, contrary to Revenue Ruling 90-72, 1990-2 C.B.

On September 18, 2009, amendments (the "Amendments") to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") came into force.

The decision of the British Columbia Superior Court in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. was a result of an application for directions with respect to what amounts are properly covered by the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”).

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), came into force on July 7, 2008. This paper will set out the implications of the WEPPA on insolvency practice and provide a brief analysis of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (Re), 2009 BCSC 41 (“LeRoy Trucking”), the only reported decision regarding the WEPPA (as at the date of this paper) since the legislation came into force.

I. Introduction to the WEPPA

On July 7th, the Wage Earner Protection Program (hereinafter the "WEPP") came into force, as instituted by the Wage Earner Protection Program Act[1].

The WEPP applies to workers whose employers have been declared bankrupt or were placed under receivership as of July 7, 2008.

The Fund provides monetary relief to employees when their employers become insolvent. Currently, employees of insolvent employers may apply to the Fund for ex-gratia payment of sums owed to them by their employers under the heads of wages, wages in lieu of notice and severance payment.

The bankruptcy and insolvency reforms passed by Parliament in 2005 and 2007 will at last come into force today, September 18th, 2009. While a small initial round of reforms dealing with employee wages were implemented in July 2008, today marks a more radical shift in Canadian insolvency law as the remaining amendments come into effect. The reforms will be applicable to any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings started on or after today’s date. Key elements of the reforms will include:

Interim Financing, Administrative and D&O Charges