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.

In Canada, there is more than one insolvency regime available to an insolvent company that wishes to restructure its debts and operations. However, the most commonly used regime for large companies ? and sometimes for smaller companies, because it is the most flexible ? is the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA). The most commonly used regime for smaller companies or less complicated restructurings is proposal proceedings under theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA).

CCAA

Debtor in Possession (“DIP”) financing is essentially new bridge financing that is provided to a corporation as it undergoes insolvency proceedings. The term exists because the corporation maintains possession of its assets during this process as opposed to having a bankruptcy trustee take possession. The concept derived from the United States of America where DIP financing is expressly provided for under c.11 of the Bankruptcy Code and allows a bankrupt corporation to incur new debt for the purposes of carrying on business operations.

On May 8, 2009, the Honourable Madam Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C36, as amended (the “CCAA”) in respect of Gandi Innovations Limited (“Gandi Canada”), Gandi Innovations Holdings LLC (“Gandi Holdings”) and Gandi Innovations LLC (“Gandi Texas”) (collectively, the “Gandi Group”).

Debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP financing”), which is new short-term financing obtained by an insolvent company after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding, is a recurring theme for two primary reasons. First, insolvent companies are generally desperate for an immediate infusion of cash to sustain operations. Second, creditors will usually provide such financing only on a super-priority basis, jumping ahead of existing secured creditors of the insolvent company.

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.

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”).

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court rejected a bankrupt music composer’s argument that a security interest the composer had granted in royalty based distributions should be ineffective following his bankruptcy.

Recent changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have given certain unpaid pension plan contributions priority over a lender’s security if the employer is bankrupt or in receivership. How can a lender monitor the debtor’s pension arrears to assess the extent of the lender’s loss of priority?

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act now provides that certain unpaid pension plan claims rank ahead of a lender’s security in bankruptcy or receivership proceedings. Effective July 7, 2008, sections 81.5 and 81.6 give super-priority status to: