In our last Financial Services Flash, we emphasized the issue that lenders need to be aware of specific restrictions that may apply to the liquidation of inventory over which they have security. This Flash considers the general notion that a lender needs to be cognizant of some unique and sometimes unexpected liabilities of the borrower which may take priority over such lender’s security. There are, of course, many ‘priority payables’ which are commonly known, whether they relate to unpaid wages, certain sales taxes, pension plan obligations, etc.

In the recent decision of Justice Cumming In the Matter of the Proposal of Hypnotic Clubs Inc. (“Hypnotic” or the “Debtor”) the court dismissed a motion by the Debtor for a sale of its assets pursuant to s.65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.

Caines, Re, 2010 NLTD 72

The bankrupt was the holder of a commercial fishing licence. He was discharged from his bankruptcy before the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision inRoyal Bank of Canada v. Saulnier (2008), 298 D.L.R. (4th) 193, in which that Court concluded that a fishing licence was “property” for purposes of the PPSA and BIA.

In a sleight-of-hand move dexterously played by the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"), it managed to secure advance collection of a disputed corporate income tax debt by obtaining an ex parte jeopardy collection order after the CRA was notified of an application by the taxpayer to appoint a receiver.

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

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 a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.

In Rieger Printing Ink Co, 2009 WL 477541 (Ont S.C.J. [Commercial]), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a party's right to protection against selfincrimination in relation to an examination held under section 163 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985 c. B-3 ("BIA").

Significant insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in Bill C-55 which received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005 and in Bill C-12 which received Royal assent on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until September 18, 2009.