On September 17, 2009 our firm published a summary of recent amendments (the "Amendments") to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"). This summary provided a detailed review of the significant legislative changes that were brought into force on September 18, 2009.
On September 17, 2009 our firm published a summary of recent amendments (the "Amendments") to Canada’s Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA") and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA"). This summary provided a detailed review of the significant legislative changes that were brought into force on September 18, 2009.
In the current recession, some North American businesses facing difficulty in meeting their debt obligations may consider the implications of restructuring their debt in Canada or the US. The rules in the two jurisdictions have some similarities, but also some significant differences that should be examined in any such restructuring.
The Nortel restructuring continues to be what many observers consider the most interesting Canadian restructuring in recent memory. Most recently, it was an international battle for certain of the once Canadian icon's valued assets.
Over the last few years, debtor-in-possession (DIP) loans have become a fixture in Canadian insolvency proceedings. Initially, in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, courts used inherent jurisdiction to authorize DIP facilities because the statute did not expressly permit them. (Pending legislative changes will put explicit DIP provisions in the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).)
In the course of fewer than 60 days this summer, the North American automotive industry was fundamentally reorganized and restructured as both General Motors and Chrysler reorganized under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Ford was the only one of the “Big 3” not involved in a Court-driven restructuring. Both General Motors and Chrysler, of course, had and indeed continue to have substantial operations in Canada and the Canadian operations were a critical part of the overall restructuring of both companies.
On July 21, 2009, Quebecor World Inc. and its affiliated debtors announced that they emerged from creditor protection under the CCAA and Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Quebecor announced that it had completed its Canadian and U.S. reorganization plans, closed a US $800 million exit financing facility and had drawn down approximately US $540 million with which it repaid its debtor in possession (DIP) facility.
On June 29, 2009, Nexient Learning Inc. filed under the CCAA in Ontario. Nexient announced that it made arrangements with The Vengrowth Traditional Industries Fund Inc., one of its lenders, to provide debtor in possession (DIP) financing to support its ongoing operations. Nexient also announced that on July 8, 2009 it received approval from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to conduct a sale process for the sale of its assets and that it had entered into a stalking horse asset purchase agreement. The sales process is expected to be completed by August 15, 2009.
Although the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) provides scant guidance, it is a well established procedure in a CCAA proceeding for the Court to order a claims process and to delegate powers to review creditors claims to a CCAA Monitor. Recognizing the gaps in the legislation, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court recently reviewed and clarified the basis of a Monitor’s authority to conduct a claims bar process in the CCAA restructuring of ScoZinc Ltd.
On July 27, 2009, Arclin Canada Ltd. and related Canadian entities filed under the CCAA in Ontario and related U.S. entities filed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in Delaware. Arclin announced that it had reached agreement with certain of its key senior lenders to reduce its debt from US $234 million to US $60 million and that it would receive a US $25 million debtor in possession (DIP) financing facility.