The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has denied leave to appeal in the proceedings of Nemaska Lithium Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, Nemaska) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In November 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) dismissed leave applications from the decision of the Superior Court of Québec (SCQ). In this decision, the SCQ granted, for the first time after a contested hearing, a “reverse vesting order” (RVO).

Dans une décision unanime rendue le 20 juillet 2020, la Cour d’appel du Québec (la « CAQ ») met un terme à une controverse jurisprudentielle concernant la mise en œuvre au Québec du régime de séquestre prévu à la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité (la « LFI »). La CAQ confirme qu’il est possible pour un créancier garanti d’obtenir la nomination d’un séquestre au terme de la LFI, mais que les exigences de fond et de procédure prévues au Code civil du Québec (le « C.c.Q.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered its reasons today in 9354-9186 Québec inc. v Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10, after having unanimously allowed the appeals from the bench on January 9, 2020. Davies represented the principal – and successful – appellants in this matter.¹

In its reasons, which were delivered by Chief Justice Wagner and Justice Moldaver, the Supreme Court laid out key principles for the conduct of insolvency proceedings (including proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act [CCAA]):

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in 9354-9186 Québec Inc. v Callidus Capital Corporation unanimously overturned a unanimous decision of the Québec Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision, released on January 23, 2020, was issued from the bench with reasons to follow.

Dans une décision unanime rendue séance tenante le 23 janvier 2020 dans l’affaire 9354-9186 Québec Inc. c. Callidus Capital Corporation, la Cour suprême du Canada a infirmé une décision unanime de la Cour d’appel du Québec. Les motifs de la Cour sont à venir.

In a landmark decision released on January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled in Orphan Well Association v Grant Thornton Ltd. that the environmental remediation obligations of a bankrupt oil and gas company must be fulfilled in priority over all other claims, including secured claims. In addition to immediate effects to creditors of Alberta oil and gas interests, creditors of all sectors will want to analyze the implications of this case.

Background

Dans une décision historique rendue dans l’affaire Orphan Well Association c Grant Thornton Ltd. qui a été publiée le 31 janvier 2019, la Cour suprême du Canada (la « CSC ») a conclu que les obligations d’assainissement environnemental d’une société pétrolière et gazière en faillite doivent être satisfaites avant toutes les autres obligations, y compris les obligations garanties. Outre les créanciers du secteur pétrolier et gazier de l’Alberta qui sont directement touchés par la décision, les créanciers de tous les secteurs ont intérêt à bien en analyser les conséquences.

Courts and professionals have wrestled for years with the appropriate approach to use in setting the interest rate when a debtor imposes a chapter 11 plan on a secured creditor and pays the creditor the value of its collateral through deferred payments under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Bankruptcy Code. Secured lenders gained a major victory on October 20, 2017, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a market rate of interest is preferred to a so-called “formula approach” in chapter 11, when an efficient market exists.

Post-judgment interest is not something most lenders consider when making a loan. In fact, it is not ordinarily the subject of significant analysis even when litigation becomes necessary. Where the United States District Court is the preferred venue, however, parties easily can fall into the quandary of being stuck with the federal statutory post-judgment interest rate, which is currently less than 1% per annum.

In an appeal certified directly from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) to the Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit issued a ruling upholding Judge Kevin Gross’s decision that a chapter 11 debtor-employer may reject the continuing terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) under 11 U.S.C. § 1113, despite that the CBA expired post-petition.

The Bankruptcy Court’s Decision