Section 81.1 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) grants a temporary super priority to suppliers who provided goods to a bankrupt purchaser or where a receiver has been appointed in relation to the purchaser. The section requires the supplier to provide a written demand to the purchaser and allows the supplier to repossess the goods within thirty days of the date of the delivery of goods.

TrustIn Canada (Deputy Attorney General) v. Temple City Housing Inc., the Alberta Court of Appeal had to consider an application for leave to appeal a provision in a Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (“CCAA”) order granting a DIP lender a charge in priority over the claims of CRA. The claims of CRA consisted of deemed trust claims arising under sections 224(1.2), 227(4) and 227(4.1) of the Income Tax Act (Canada).

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. This expression is particularly apt when it comes to secured creditors and their registrations under the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the “PPSA”). Although “getting it right the first time” has always been the mantra of secured creditors, the economic roller coaster ride of recent months has heightened the need to ensure a properly perfected secured claim.

Triangular (or cross-affiliate) set-off has been at issue recently in the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (Canada) (CCAA) proceedings with respect to SemCAMS ULC (SemCAMS) (and certain other of its Canadian affiliates). In one application, SemCAMS successfully challenged Nexen Marketing's (Nexen) attempts to effect triangular set-off where Nexen lacked a contractual right to do so.

Nexen Marketing was a party to a number of agreements with SemCAMS and certain of its affiliates:

American Bankruptcy Institute: Caribbean Symposium 2009

Introduction

As the pace of restructuring activity in Canada continues to accelerate (see the partial listing below), international creditors should be aware that there are credit risks in doing business with a company that is restructuring in either of Canada's two restructuring systems. (These are, briefly, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which is generally used for small to medium sized restructurings and the Companies Creditors' Arrangement Act which is generally used for large cases and resembles proceedings under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code).

In Seeley (Trustee of) v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (2008), the Bankruptcy Court determined that the Superintendent’s Levy was payable on the amount paid to a secured creditor by a Trustee in bankruptcy.The bankrupt made an assignment into bankruptcy. He owned a cabin which was mortgaged to the Bank.

The Trustee sent the Bank three notices requiring it to file proof of its security. The Bank did not respond.The cabin was sold and subsequently the Bank filed a Proof of Claim in the bankruptcy.

In Royal Bank of Canada v. Head West Energy Inc., the Court of Appeal considered the priority of two security interest registrations against the same collateral, namely industrial camp trailers, and the obligations, pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-7 (“PPSA”) of a security holder to amend its registration to reflect a name change when the security holder has knowledge of that name change.

In Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v.

On January 14, 2009, Nortel Networks Corporation obtained protection from its creditors under theCompanies' Creditors Arrangement Act. From a historical perspective, it represents a Canadian icon's fall from grace. It was once an industry heavyweight - at its height its market cap was $250 billion and accounted for two thirds of the total value of the Toronto Stock Exchange. As North America's largest maker of telephone equipment (and now into its 113th year), its problems were compounded by the global financial crisis and North American recession as well as by global competition.