In a series of cases in 2009 culminating in the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morawetz in Re Indalex Limited (“Indalex”), the CCAA Courts have considered the appropriateness of approving the granting of a guarantee in connection with a cross-border DIP facility. This issue has been at the forefront – with varying results – in a number of recent CCAA cases in which DIP financing was dependent on the CCAA debtor providing a secured guarantee of the obligations of the parent or affiliate company’s DIP financing in its own Chapter 11 case.

From modest beginnings, the concept of Cross-Border Insolvency Protocols as a means of enhancing cooperation between administrations in international cases has become an established practice in major cases. From their origins in the International Bar Association’s Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat through the early Protocols in Maxwell Communication and Everfresh Beverages, Protocols have become a mainstay in international reorganizations and restructurings.

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal has rationalized the approach to be taken by Courts in considering appeals in CCAA cases.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently permitted a debtor to establish a "hardship" fund to pay obligations incurred prior to the debtor's CCAA filing to local suppliers operating in the debtor’s community.

As previously reported, the International Insolvency Institute will hold its Ninth Annual International Insolvency Conference at Columbia University in New York on June 18 and 19, 2009. This Conference is likely to be the finest international insolvency Conference of the year and has an exceptionally talented and prominent faculty that will address today’s critical international insolvency issues and developments. Among the highlights of the Conference are the following:

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.

AbitibiBowater

On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).

Fulfilling the terms of an agreement reached with bondholders in February, Charter Communications submitted a petition for Chapter 11 protection last Friday to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The bankruptcy petition would restructure a portion of the debt owed by St. Louis-based Charter, the nation’s fourth largest cable operator with more than 5.5 million subscribers. At the end of last year, Charter listed total debt obligations of $21.7 billion with annual interest costs approaching $2 billion.

As the pace of restructuring activity in Canada continues to accelerate (see the partial listing below), international creditors should be aware that there are credit risks in doing business with a company that is restructuring in either of Canada's two restructuring systems. (These are, briefly, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which is generally used for small to medium sized restructurings and the Companies Creditors' Arrangement Act which is generally used for large cases and resembles proceedings under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code).