Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA) provides a flexible tool that allows corporations to achieve important change and undertake various corporate transactions, subject to court approval and oversight. This article aims to provide an update on the Québec courts’ acceptance of virtual securityholder meetings and approach to the solvency requirement.

Overview of the arrangement process

On April 1, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec (QCA) in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943, which had put an end to a long-lasting debate on the availability of ‘national’ receivers to Québec secured creditors. The decision of the QCA is now final.

On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the QCA) released its reasons in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation,^[1] putting an end to a long-lasting debate on the availability of national receivers to Québec secured creditors.

The law in Canada concerning priorities between the statutory deemed trusts relating to pension plan contributions and certain pension fund shortfalls on the one hand, and court ordered charges in favour of DIP lenders on the other hand has been in a state of flux ever since the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) in Re Indalex.

In Re Crystallex, 2012 ONCA 404, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld unusually broad DIP financing arrangements granted pursuant to section 11.2 of the Canadian Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) despite the vociferous objections of substantially all of Crystallex’s creditors.  By dismissing the appeal, the Court endorsed the supervising CCAA judge’s approval of:

In Re Crystallex, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) unanimously upheld three orders of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“OSCJ”) that (1) authorized bridge financing, (2) authorized interim financing