Lenders should be cognizant that the granting of security by a debtor may be subject to challenge as a fraudulent preference in the event the debtor subsequently files for liquidation or proposal proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the “BIA”) or restructuring proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”). Such risk arises if the debtor is insolvent the time the security was granted.

In the midst of the ongoing restructurings of Nortel and AbitibiBowater, the New Democrats introduced Bill C-501 in the spring of 2010 to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) with the goal of better protecting employees’ interests in the context of formal insolvency proceedings, including pension interests. However, Bill C-501 did not become law.

Introduction

In “True Lease v. Security Lease – Is the Distinction Still Relevant?” which appeared in the June 2008 issue of Collateral Matters, Jill Fraser discussed a 2007 amendment to the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (the “PPSA”) and whether or not the distinction between a true lease and a security lease was still relevant in light of that amendment.

Summary

On August 19, 2011, the Federal Minister of Finance released a significant package of proposed amendments to Canada’s income tax rules applicable to Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates (the Proposals).  The Proposals apply to most distributions from, and reorganizations of, foreign subsidiaries of Canadian corporations and contain new rules applicable to certain loans received from foreign subsidiaries that remain outstanding for at least two years, among other significant changes.  In addition to certain important new measures, the Proposals replace numero

A nominee director of a corporation appointed by one of its creditors may encounter risk of liability where that creditor is engaged with the corporation in efforts to restructure its debt. Steps can be taken to minimize the risk of such liability.

Nominee Directors in Canada

Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

In the recent case of Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine: