The Court of Appeal for Ontario's (the "OCA") decision in Re Indalex Ltd.1 was decried by professionals in pension, banking and insolvency practices. On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC" or the "Court") overturned the OCA's decision.
“When a business becomes insolvent, many interests are at risk. Creditors may not be able to recover their debts, investors may lose their investments and employees may lose their jobs. If the business is the sponsor of an employee pension plan, the benefits promised by the plan are not immune from that risk. The circumstances leading to these appeals show how that risk can materialize. Pension plans and creditors find themselves in a zero-sum game with not enough money to go around.
Swaps market participants accepting cash collateral from an entity subject to Ontario provincial pension benefits legislation will want to consider the implications of this decision on their priority. Unfortunately and somewhat surprisingly, the Supreme Court of Canada did not overturn a key part of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.
On Friday, February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Indalex Limited (Re). The ruling stemmed from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that had created commercial uncertainty for financing transactions. The primary issue for lenders was a priority dispute between a court ordered super-priority charge granted to a lender that had provided “debtor-in-possession” (DIP) financing under the Compan
The Supreme Court of Canada released its highly anticipated decision in Indalex Limited (Re) this morning. The ruling stemmed from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that had created commercial uncertainty among many participants in the financial services, pensions and restructuring industries.
This is another post-Indalex pension deficit priority case. Due to factual differences from Indalex, however, the pension claims were largely rejected.
On December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its ruling in Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc., 2012 SCC 67 and in so doing, closed an important chapter in the successful cross-border restructuring of AbitibiBowater Inc. - now Resolute Forest Products - under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") and Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Facts of the Case
Companies restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) depend on a supply of critical products and services in order to continue operations during the proceedings. An interruption in the supply of such goods and services would likely be fatal to any restructuring. Prior to 2009, the CCAA was silent about how the post-filing supply of such goods and services was to be obtained. The CCAA provided only that a supplier could not be forced to supply on credit.
Bill C-45 proposes changes to the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act to enhance certainty that clearing house default rules will be enforceable in the event of a clearing member default. These reforms are an important aspect of financial markets reforms