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.

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.

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.

With many companies going through financial trouble, there is a fear among licensees that they will lose their right to use licensed intellectual property ("IP") if the licensor becomes insolvent and wants to restructure. Up until now there has been much uncertainty in the common law as to whether an insolvent debtor may disclaim an IP licence agreement in a restructuring.

As we previously wrote about (Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2008), the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (“WEPPA”) came into force on July 7, 2008 as part of a comprehensive reform package to the Bankruptcy & Insolvency Act (“BIA”). WEPPA was designed to protect the wages of employees terminated as a result of a bankruptcy or receivership. Employees could now claim up to $3,000 worth of wages earned in the six months immediately preceding the bankruptcy or receivership, as well as a $2,000 super priority claim on all current assets of their employer.

After years of waiting, significant amendments to the Canadian regime of bankruptcy and insolvency law were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (Amendments).

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-anticipated decision in Quebec (Revenue) v. Caisse populaire Desjardins de Montmagny. At issue in this case (and two companion cases) was the legal characterization of Crown rights with respect to collected but unremitted GST and Quebec sales tax (QST) in the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Crown is an ordinary unsecured creditor with respect to such amounts, subject to the rights of prior ranking security holders.

Summary of Facts

On October 30, 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its much awaited decision regarding Revenue Quebec's creative "owenership" claim over the tax portions of a bankrupt's accounts recievable.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Hydro One Inc. v. Ontario (Financial Services Commission) on January 11, 2010. This was an appeal from the Ontario Divisional Court – see our Labour & Employment in the News dated April 18, 2008, that reported on the Divisional Court’s decision. The court dismissed the appeal, in favour of members of the Hydro One Pension Plan (the “Plan”).

introduction

This document provides a brief overview of insolvency proceedings in Canada. It outlines the Canadian legislative framework and briefly describes the receivership process, the bankruptcy regime and the formal restructuring alternatives available to debtors.

legislative framework