As we reported in our March 2017 bulletin "And then there were none; Ontario has repealed the Bulk Sales Act", the Bulk Sales Act (Ontario) (the “BSA”) was repealed as a result of the coming into force of Schedule 3 of Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act, 2017.
When a lender makes an interest bearing loan to a borrower for a fixed term, the contract may provide that the borrower cannot repay the principal sum before maturity. This is often referred to as a “no call” provision. The intent of this provision is to protect the lender’s expected return on its investment during the term of the contract. Otherwise, the lender could be faced with the loss of interest payments that the borrower would have otherwise paid to the lender.
On November 16, 2016, the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services (“MGCS”) posted the Fall 2016 report (the “Report”)[1] of the Business Law Advisory Council (the ”Council”), which was formed by the MGCS in March 2016 to put forward recommendations for modernizing Ontario’s corporate and commercial statutes.
The tension between a trustee seeking to facilitate a proposal for the benefit of all creditors and a single creditor being forced to release its rights for the “greater good” was front and center in a recent case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice serves as a reminder for secured lenders of the importance of perfecting a security interest by registration. Absent perfection, collateral is at risk of seizure by judgment creditors of the borrower. Perfection, however, insures that a creditor has a priority interest in collateral over any subsequent judgment creditor. The decision also shows the importance to vendors of conducting continuous diligence on customers when credit is being extended on a regular basis.
Backround
On October 7, 2015, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the Supreme Court of British Columbia's decision in Barafield Realty Ltd. v. Just Energy (B.C.) Limited Partnership ["Barafield Realty"].1 In July of 2014, we wrote the attached bulletin http://www.mcmillan.ca/Assigning-contracts-in-Canadian-insolvency-proceedings on the lower court decision.
As discussed in our May 2016 bulletin, New Rules for Asset Sales by Insolvent Producers (at least for now), the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Re Redwater Energy Corporation, 2016 ABQB 278 ("Redwater") determined that provisions of the provincial legislation governing the actions of licensees of oil and gas assets did not apply to receivers and trustees in bankruptcy of insolvent companies, given the paramountcy of the Bank
In Alberta, regulations have historically prohibited purchasers of oil and gas assets from cherry picking operating interests in economic properties while leaving behind interests in uneconomic wells. This has had a significant negative impact on the ability of a receiver or trustee to market and sell assets owned by insolvent companies and on the prices those assets are able to attract.
Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f). While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.
On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.