Section 81.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) grants a temporary super priority to suppliers who provided goods to a bankrupt purchaser or where a receiver has been appointed in relation to the purchaser. The section requires the supplier to provide a written demand to the purchaser and allows the supplier to repossess the goods within thirty days of the date of the delivery of goods.

In Re EarthFirst Canada Inc., Justice Romaine had to consider establishing a “hardship fund” that would be used to allow EarthFirst Canada Inc. (“EarthFirst”) to pay pre-filing obligations owing to certain suppliers and contractors operating in a remote community where EarthFirst is developing a wind farm project.

In Royal Bank of Canada v. Head West Energy Inc., the Court of Appeal considered the priority of two security interest registrations against the same collateral, namely industrial camp trailers, and the obligations, pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-7 (“PPSA”) of a security holder to amend its registration to reflect a name change when the security holder has knowledge of that name change.

Recently, in Re Eddie Bauer of Canada Inc., Justice Morawetz ordered a debtor was entitled to pay amounts owing for goods and services actually supplied prior to the filing date.

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").

Recently, in Re AbitibiBowater Inc., the Province of Newfoundland sought a court order granting it access to the electronic data room of Abitibi created for the purpose of dissemination of certain non-public financial and operation information to its counsel, certain creditors, and the Monitor. The Court denied the Province’s application on the basis that it could not prove itself to be a legitimate stakeholder of Abitibi, and on several policy grounds.

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.

On October 13, 2009, Arclin Canada Ltd./Arclin Canada Ltee. (“Arclin”), who is restructuring under CCAA proceedings and whose American affiliates are restructuring under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, sought the approval of key employee retention program (“KERP”) agreements with its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, and sought sealing orders with respect of the agreements. The KERP was approved by Justice Hoy. The following are some noteworthy points from this case.

In a corporate reorganization under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”), the design of appropriate classes of creditors can be central to the success of the restructuring initiative. The requisite “double majority” for a plan of arrangement to be approved, being a majority in number and two thirds by value of support from creditors, is required per class in order to be binding on that class.

Over the last two years, with the fluctuations in the economic market, commercial real estate in distress has become a lively topic among insolvency practitioners and even in court decisions.