Morris Kaiser’s trustee in bankruptcy, Soberman Inc., thought it smelled a rat: while claiming to be impecunious, Kaiser appeared to be living a life of ‘some means’, which included trips to casinos in the US. Kaiser claimed he was drawing advances on the credit card of a buddy, Cecil Bergman, but the trustee suspected the whole thing was a front to shield Kaiser’s assets from his creditors.

In an earlier edition of Fully Secured (June 27, 2012 – Volume 3, Number 2), we reported on the Ontario Court of Justice decision in Snoek ⁷ where security granted by a borrower (“HSLP”) to a group of individual creditors (“B”) was held to constitute an improper preference and declared invalid following a challenge by the trustee in bankruptcy. B had been one victim of a Ponzi scheme involving numerous unsecured creditors of HSLP.

Recently, the superior court rendered a decision ¹ which clarifies the extent of the discretion a court has when asked to ratify a hypothecary creditor’s recommendation to appoint an employee of its legal counsel to act as the officer of the court entrusted with the sale by judicial authority of the collateral secured in its favour.

CONTEXT

In recent years, manufacturers and lessors of heavy industrial equipment have installed sophisticated systems into their units which require a computer code be entered in order for the equipment to operate. This computer code may need to be updated or changed periodically. If the purchaser or lessee is in arrears in making payment to the manufacturer or lessor, the manufacturer or lessor may refuse to supply the debtor with the new access code. In effect, the manufacturer or lessor has the ability to remotely render the equipment unusable.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

On April 2, 2013, Justice Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an application brought by Business Development Bank of Canada (“BDC”) for the appointment of a receiver over the assets, undertakings and properties of Pine Tree Resort Inc. and 1212360 Ontario Limited, operating as the Delawana Inn in Honey Harbour, Ontario (together, “Delawana”).

In Kasten Energy Inc. v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd., 2013 ABQB 63, the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench considered the application of Kasten Energy Inc. (“Kasten”) to appoint a receiver over all of the assets and undertakings of Shamrock Oil & Gas Ltd. (“Shamrock”). The decision in this case presents a useful and concise summary of the applicable test for the appointment of a receiver.  

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision that has implications for borrowers and lenders alike, particularly where pension funds are involved, has raised some new hurdles for the country’s banks and their business customers and, at the same time, has bolstered protection for lenders of last resort who finance insolvent companies.

The court’s decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, issued earlier this year, addresses critical questions in insolvency law regarding pension funds and DIP financing.