Law360 Canada ( March 15, 2021, 9:25 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the Trustee in Bankruptcy from a decision of a case management judge striking out or summarily dismissing various parts of the Trustee’s claim and from a cost award awarding the respondent Rose enhanced costs against the Trustee. Cross-appeal by the respondents from the judge’s refusal to dismiss the trustee’s claim under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The Trustee challenged an asset transaction that was part of a pre-bankruptcy, multistep corporate reorganization and sale of assets on the basis that it was at an undervalue and not at arm’s length. The transaction was also challenged under the oppression provisions and on public policy grounds. There was a related claim against the respondent Rose for breach of her duties as a director of the bankrupt. The challenged transaction involved the transfer of shallow natural gas assets associated with significant future Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations to the bankrupt for 10 dollars. In a subsequent share transaction, the respondent Perpetual Energy Parent sold all the shares of the bankrupt for one dollar to a numbered company. The bankrupt assumed the Abandonment and Reclamation Obligations. Eighteen months after the transaction, the bankrupt assigned itself into bankruptcy. The oppression claim was struck for failure to disclose a cause of action, because the Trustee in Bankruptcy was not a proper person to be a complainant or because the oppression claim lacked merit. The pleading respecting the public policy claim was struck for failure to disclose a cause of action. The claim against Rose was struck for failure to disclose a cause of action and was also summarily dismissed on the merits and because the Resignation & Mutual Release signed by her was a complete defence. The claim under s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act was neither struck nor summarily dismissed....