By some accounts, there is over $300 billion of commercial real estate debt set to mature over each of the next four years. As a result of a lack of demand, a lack of liquidity and lackluster valuations, a significant portion of this debt will go into default. In many cases, bankruptcies will ensue for both the projects and their owners.

vWe are on pace to see a record number of business bankruptcies in 2009, with a notable amount of activity in the retail, manufacturing and automotive sectors. In light of the impact of today's bankruptcies on vendors of goods, it is worthwhile to revisit one of the protections afforded to trade creditors under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) changed the legal landscape of bankruptcy asset sales. Prior to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer, 391 B.R. 25 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008), courts routinely stripped liens from assets purchased in a bankruptcy sale. Moreover, appeals of these sales were generally considered non-reviewable. The BAP in Clear Channel overturned these two longstanding features of bankruptcy asset sales, and, if followed, this decision could result in enforcement of existing property liens against asset purchasers.

Canada’s insolvency and restructuring regime consists primarily of two separate statutes that have been substantially amended in recent years to align their restructuring provisions. Despite some similarities with its U.S. counterpart, the amended Canadian regime remains distinct.

Currently, neither the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act nor the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act defines “director.” However, pending legislative amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) will include an expansive definition of “director” that includes any person “occupying the position of director,” regardless of his or her formal title.

Distressed preferred shares are an important weapon in the arsenal of a restructuring lawyer. They allow distressed companies to reduce their borrowing costs by restructuring their debt in a way that gives a taxable Canadian resident corporate lender a tax-free return. This means that the lender can accept a dividend rate that is less than the interest rate on the debt it holds and receive the same economic return without losing the priority that came with holding secured debt.

Although the global “credit crisis” phenomenon has been dominating the headlines for some time, the implications of it in Canada may just be beginning in the form of increased distressed M&A activity. The past decade of unprecedented growth and the abundance of liquidity has been replaced in the past few months by a more conservative lending environment. Around the country, bank loan officers are busy reviewing financial statements and covenant compliance certificates, and assessing loan renewals of corporate clientele.

This past summer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that "deepening insolvency" is not a recognized theory of damages in Minnesota. Christians v. Thornton, 733 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. App. 2007). In September, the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied a petition to review, 2007 Minn. LEXIS 572 (Minn. Sept. 18, 2007), leaving in place a decision that is an enormous relief to officers and directors of troubled companies, to banks that have lent to troubled companies, and to professionals such as lawyers, accountants and investment brokers who have provided services to troubled companies.

On March 29, 2007 the Federal Government introduced Bill C-52: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007 (Bill C-52). Bill C-52 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA), the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the CCAA), the Winding-Up and Restructuring Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act (the CDICA) and the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act with respect to eligible financial contracts (EFCs).

Ontario has introduced a series of significant amendments to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the PPSA). The last major amendments to the PPSA occurred in 1989. This Osler Update highlights amendments to the PPSA that are of particular interest to court officers of insolvent enterprises and others taking or enforcing security.