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.

Set-off is a powerful and often under-appreciated insolvency remedy in Canada. A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench highlighted the importance of the doctrine and examined the requirements for a claim of equitable set-off in the context of a corporate group.

The right to assert valid set-off claims is expressly preserved in Canadian insolvency legislation. The remedy applies such that creditors may set-off (or net-out) amounts owing to them by an insolvent party, against amounts otherwise payable by them to the insolvent party.

Unpaid suppliers are generally unsecured in liquidation proceedings. A supplier can elevate its unsecured claim by taking security from the debtor or modifying its supply contract by inserting an effective title retention clause. The supplier may also rely on the BIA unpaid supplier provision to assert a super-priority for the return of its goods.

In a series of cases in 2009 culminating in the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morawetz in Re Indalex Limited (“Indalex”), the CCAA Courts have considered the appropriateness of approving the granting of a guarantee in connection with a cross-border DIP facility. This issue has been at the forefront – with varying results – in a number of recent CCAA cases in which DIP financing was dependent on the CCAA debtor providing a secured guarantee of the obligations of the parent or affiliate company’s DIP financing in its own Chapter 11 case.

Earlier this year Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (Abitibi) and various related entities proposed to enter into an arrangement with certain classes of its creditors relying on the plan of arrangement provisions in the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA). It is unusual to propose a corporate plan with respect to a company's debt. The CBCA plan of arrangement provision is not fundamentally an insolvency law. The procedure is most often used to restructure securityholder relationships within solvent companies and that is the primary intention.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

The decision of the British Columbia Superior Court in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. was a result of an application for directions with respect to what amounts are properly covered by the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”).

A. THE PROBLEM

Many charities and associations have cash flow challenges, particularly in the current economic situation. They usually budget to break even financially. If some funding does not materialize as expected, they may be forced to close down. Their directors may be at financial risk as a result.

In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for court approval of the Bidding Procedures pertaining to the sale of Nortel’s “Layer 4-7” business, as well as approval of a “Stalking Horse” bidding process.

Prior to filing for protection under the CCAA, Nortel decided that the Layer 4-7 business should be sold. Shortly after filing, Nortel agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Radware for the purchase of the Layer 4-7 business (the “Purchase Agreement”).