Bankruptcy and Insolvency

Case considered: Kasten Energy Inc v Shamrock Oil and Gas Ltd, 2013 ABQB 63.

In this case Justice Lee granted Kasten’s application to appoint a receiver\manager over all of the assets of Shamrock, including Shamrock’s Crown oil and gas lease. Kasten was a secured creditor of Shamrock claiming under a general security agreement (GSA) over Shamrock’s present and after acquired personal property. In the course of making his decision to appoint a receiver Justice Lee concluded that Shamrock’s lease was an intangible form of personal property. Kasten brought its application for the appointment of a receiver\manager Kasten under section 13(2) of the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2 rather than under section 65(7) of the Personal Property Security Act, RSA 2000, c P-7 (PPSA).

Issuance of a Notice of Abandonment under Clause 1201 of CAPL is an Attempt to Exercise a “Right to Remedy” within the Meaning of the Typical Stay Provisions of a Receivership Order

By Nigel Bankes

On September 13, 2012

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Oil & Gas

PDF version: Issuance of a notice of abandonment under clause 1201 of CAPL is an attempt to exercise a “right to remedy” within the meaning of the typical stay provisions of a Receivership Order

Case Commented On: Baytex Energy Ltd. v Sterling Eagle Petroleum Corporation, 2012 ABQB 539

The Facts

Baytex and Sterling held 50% working interests in certain properties by way of various agreements of 1995 and 1996. The properties were also subject to the terms of the CAPL Operating Procedure. There were a number of producing wells on the joint lands and four non-producing wells. Sterling was placed in receivership in June 2011 and the terms of the Receivership Order were brought to the attention of Baytex in August 2011. Revenues from the producing wells continued to be paid to the Receiver. The Order, conventionally, provided that:

Ride the Coattails –Yahoo!

By Cliff Shaw, Q.C.

On June 25, 2012

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Creditors’ Remedies

PDF version: Ride the Coattails –Yahoo!

Case considered: Toronto Dominion Bank v Letendre, 2012 ABQB 323 rev’g 2012 ABQB 369.

This was a competition for the surplus funds paid into court in a mortgage foreclosure action.The case examined policy and operational aspects of the two year limitation in section 3(1) of the Limitations Act, RSA 2000, c L-12 (“Act”).

Restructuring under the CCAA: Should A Debtor Always Be Allowed to Proceed?

By Jassmine Girgis

On January 28, 2010

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Creditors’ Remedies

Case considered: Budget Waste Inc., Re, 2009 ABQB 752.

PDF version: Restructuring under the CCAA: Should A Debtor Always Be Allowed to Proceed?

LoVecchio J.’s decision in Budget Waste Inc., Re (“Budget Waste“) is a great example of the questions courts need to keep in mind as they are deciding on issues that arise in the context of restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (“CCAA“).

The GM Saga So Far

By Jassmine Girgis

On June 5, 2009

In Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Corporate / Commercial

PDF version: The GM Saga So Far

The current financial crisis is arguably the largest corporate debacle and multi-market crash since the Great Depression. Its costs for corporations are substantial and many high profile companies have filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 (U.S. Code, Title 11, Chapter 11) or the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-36) (“CCAA“). In the United States and elsewhere, this has even affected financial institutions, institutions previously viewed as “too big to fail”, namely AIG, Citigroup, Bear Stearns, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the second largest bank failure in U.S. history), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Lehman Brothers, and Wells Fargo. To date, many Canadian corporations have filed for CCAA protection.