On September 18, 2009, long-awaited amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) take effect that will have a significant impact on commercial insolvencies in Canada. While many of these changes reflect existing practice and case law, some introduce more novel concepts not developed by courts, broadening what can be accomplished under the insolvency regime. This article comments on salient features of the new amendments.

Long-awaited amendments to Canada’s insolvency legislation came into force on September 18, 2009. The amendments materially reform both of Canada’s major insolvency statutes: the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). To a considerable degree the amendments codify 15 years of case law developments, but with modifications that could prove to be material in the next few years.

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.

American Bankruptcy Institute: Caribbean Symposium 2009

Introduction

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.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Saulnier (Receiver of) v. Saulnier has changed the basis for determining whether a licence is property under a provincial Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

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.

On July 7, 2008 specific provisions of the Insolvency Reform Act, 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act, 2007 were proclaimed into force by Order in Council. As a result, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) and certain related amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) have come into immediate effect.

Certain of those amendments are intended to protect current and former employees of insolvent companies and will affect lenders to insolvent businesses.

The relationship between Canada and the United States is one of the closest and most extensive in the world. With the equivalent of $1.6 billion in bilateral trade every day3, it is no surprise that a large number of US companies have subsidiary operations and assets located in Canada. Despite numerous socio-economic similarities between both countries and legal regimes both anchored in the tradition of common law, there are a number of legal differences that have the potential to significantly impact US companies doing business in Canada.

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.