The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Indalex allowed in part the appeal of Sun Indalex Finance and, in doing so, delivered guidance to companies entering into restructuring proceedings.  

Background

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.

A ruling on December 7, 2012, by the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that orders made under provincial environmental protection legislation can be compromised as part of insolvency proceedings. While not all regulatory claims will be compromised in this way, those that meet certain criteria of "monetary claims" can be. The decision in Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. has important ramifications for debtor companies and their stakeholders in respect of contaminated property and other regulatory matters.

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background

A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

We have prepared this Business Law Guide as a general overview of certain legal and business matters that may be relevant to a decision to establish or invest in a business in Canada.

1. Introduction

The doctrine of equitable subordination in bankruptcy cases has long been recognized by U.S. courts and subsequently codified in the United States in section 510(c) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.¹