On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.

It is well-established that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to approve a plan of compromise or arrangement under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act that includes releases in favour of third-parties. The leading decision on the issue remains Metcalfe & Mansfield Alternative Investments II Corp., which arose in response to the liquidity crisis that threatened the Canadian market in asset-backed commercial paper after the U.S.

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 challenging commodity price environment will likely bring renewed focus on the rights and obligations that will be impacted if insolvency overtakes exploration and production companies. The British Columbia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Re: Walter Energy Canada Holdings, Inc. is a case in point. The case dealt squarely with the question of whether a mineral royalty “runs with the land” – a question that takes on significantly greater importance in the insolvency context.

In a previous post we discussed how the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta recently authorized a sale transaction after being satisfied with the appropriateness of a sales process that was undertaken prior to the issuance of the receivership order.

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.

In the recent unreported decision of Alberta Treasury Branches v. Northpine Energy Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta authorized a disposition of a debtor’s assets by a receiver immediately upon appointment and without being forced to conduct a marketing process within the receivership proceedings.

On April 14, 2016, the priority of statutory trust protections afforded to subcontractors and suppliers under Alberta’s lien legislation was strengthened: the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal in Iona Contractors Ltd. v. Guarantee Company of North America, 2015 ABCA 240, thereby bolstering the priority of the trust even in the face of a bankrupt general contractor.

Both the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”)[1] and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act[2] stay actions and remedies as against debtors.

Section 11.4 of the CCAA requires that persons identified as critical suppliers to a debtor company continue to provide goods and services on terms and conditions with the existing supply relationship.