Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

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

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).

TPR settled its dispute with Michael Van de Wiele (VdW) in relation to its UK pension scheme and issued a Contribution Notice (CN) for £60,000. Although this is significantly less than the £21 million originally sought and the £5.08 million decided by the Determinations Panel, TPR says it is “business as usual” for the use of its statutory anti-avoidance powers. A settlement at this level might be viewed as a defeat for TPR and an indication that CNs are not a potent weapon to deal with the avoidance of employer debts. That view would be seriously misguided.

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 waiver of Solicitor/Client privilege by a bankrupt company is a difficult matter and one distinct from the waiver of such privilege by an individual bankrupt. As there is nothing in the BIA that either gives or denies a trustee the right to waive solicitor/client privilege on behalf of a company,Hahaha yes with a lot of candles! the courts have had to turn to the common law for guidance on the issue.

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.

TheBankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c. B‐3 (the “BIA”) was recently amended to repeal the settlement and reviewable transaction sections of the Act, and replaced these sections with provisions regarding transfers under value and preferences. The aim of these new provisions is to prevent bankrupts from unfairly preferring certain creditors over others and to prevent bankrupts from transferring assets for significantly less than they are worth.

In Re Farmpure Seeds Inc. (2008 CarswellSask. 639) the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench considered the proposal of a debtor which was conditional upon the Court approving DIP financing and a super priority charge.

The debtor company had an active business, however became insolvent as a result of rapid expansion and some improvident contracts. The debtor could not meet its immediate obligations such as payroll, and the need to pay its suppliers upon receipt of their seed product. As a result, the debtor could not maintain its business without immediate interim financing.