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.

On March 3, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Dodd v. Prime Restaurants of Canada Inc. (2012 ONSC 1578). The decision acts as a caution to franchisors to ensure their franchisees are fully informed and properly advised prior to entering into settlement agreements. Without such steps, franchisors may find releases rendered ineffective against subsequent statutory claims by the application of section 11 of the Arthur Wishart Act (the Act).

Background

The Austrian Act on Financial Collateral (Finanzsicherheiten-Gesetz; FinSG), which regulates the granting and enforcement of financial collateral arrangements between participants in the financial markets, has recently been amended with effect from 30 June 2011. Changes include the extension of the scope of application of the law.

Since the enactment of the new insolvency law in 2006, its proceedings have been amended many times to improve and simplify bankruptcy. In the past few years, the economic downturn has caused more and more companies to request court protection with the hope of undergoing reorganisation, realising that insolvency need not be the death of the company but, rather, a second chance.

The means of obtaining information on a person’s creditworthiness were broadened in 2011 by launching a pending execution proceedings register kept by the Bulgarian Private Bailiffs Chamber.

Capital measures are common reorganisation measures when a capital company is in financial crisis, including eg injection of fresh capital by way of a capital increase. The implementation of capital measures during financial crisis is often a source of dispute amongst shareholders, in particular if the capital measures are driven by a financially strong majority shareholder.

The law in Canada concerning priorities between the statutory deemed trusts relating to pension plan contributions and certain pension fund shortfalls on the one hand, and court ordered charges in favour of DIP lenders on the other hand has been in a state of flux ever since the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) in Re Indalex.

In Re LightSquared LP, the Ontario Court of Superior Justice [Commercial List] (the “Canadian Court”) refined the test for determining the location of a debtor’s center of main interest (“COMI”) under Part IV of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”), which is the Canadian equivalent of Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

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: