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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 2013 BL 341634 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor "under this title" to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code caps the amount of a lessor’s claim against a debtor-lessee for damages arising from the termination of a real property lease. The statutory cap is calculated according to a formula that considers, among other things, the date on which the lessor “repossessed” or the debtor-lessee “surrendered” the leased property. Because those terms are not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, however, courts disagree as to whether state or federal law should determine their meanings for the purpose of calculating the allowed amount of the lessor’s claims.