In Ontario, a debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lender is usually granted a charge by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) over the assets of the debtor which is under the protection of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) to secure the repayment of the DIP loan.  The priority of the charge is set out in the order granting the charge.  Most such orders provide that prior to exercising its rights and remedies against the debtor after an event of default, the DIP lender must appl

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:

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Re IndalexLimited (“Indalex”). The Indalex decision concerned, among other things, the priority of a deemed trust for certain unpaid pension amounts over the super-priority charge granted in favour of a DIP Lender.

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

The Delaware bankruptcy court in the KB Toys, Inc. cases recently held that a claims purchaser takes a claim subject to certain disabilities of the claim as held by the seller, regardless of whether the claim transfer is deemed a “sale” or an “assignment.” SeeIn re KB Toys, Inc., Case No. 04-10120 (KJC) (Bankr. Del. May 4, 2012). In so ruling, the Delaware court’s decision is somewhat at odds with the decision issued by the District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Enron bankruptcy cases. See Enron Corp. v.

After several years of unusually few corporate defaults, there has recently been an uptick in corporations failing to satisfy their bond and loan obligations. In a number of cases, the debts in question are part of multiple-lien or multi-tranche financing structures that incorporate complex subordination packages. The agreements at issue often go beyond merely subordinating rights to payments.

It is common for lenders to require borrowers to agree to pay a higher interest rate, known as the default rate, following an event of default under a loan. Some loan agreements also require the borrower to pay a fee in the event of a late payment. If the borrower files for bankruptcy protection, the Bankruptcy Code affords special protection to secured creditors with respect to collecting interest.

It is common knowledge that the Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor with a “fresh start” by allowing it to discharge prepetition claims. Similarly, section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee or debtor in possession to sell property of the estate “free and clear” of prior claims. These two concepts, while relatively straightforward, raise a fundamental question — when does a creditor hold a “claim” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code?

In the 2010 decision of In re Philadelphia Newspapers, 599 F.3d 298 (3d. Cir. 2010), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a plan proponent could deny a secured creditor the right to credit bid on its collateral when the sale was made pursuant to a plan of reorganization. That holding was a surprise to many given that secured creditors were specifically authorized to credit bid in stand-alone sales under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. A year or so later, another circuit court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, came to the opposite conclusion.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) recently declined to grant a receivership order under section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (“BIA”) and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) (“CJA”) or to approve a proposed  “quick flip” transaction among related companies on the basis of an insufficient evidentiary record. Insolvency practitioners should take note of this case, 9-Ball Interests Inc. v.