The Supreme Court has announced it will hear the appeal in the high profile Indalex Ltd., Re. The appeal is of great interest to the commercial litigation, insolvency and pension bar. Its outcome will be closely watched and may have dramatic impact on Canadian corporate reorganizations.

Background

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear an appeal of the unanimous decision rendered last April by the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) in Re Indalex Limited (Indalex). According to many commentators, the Indalex case turns accepted law on the priority of debtor in possession (DIP) and working capital security on its head and introduces new concerns for employers about how to properly discharge their sometimes conflicting duties under corporate law and under pension law.

What role does business common sense play in the interpretation of commercial contracts? This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Rainy Sky S.A. v. Kookmin Bank. The answer: “where a term of a contract is open to more than one interpretation, it is generally appropriate to adopt the interpretation which is most consistent with business common sense”. Since there is currently some uncertainty in Canada on the point, Rainy Sky is an important case to consider.

Decision

Recently, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision in the Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers disputes. The judgment confirms that liabilities under Financial Support Directions (FSDs) and Contribution Notices (CNs), which are issued by the Pensions Regulator, will rank ahead of almost all other claims when a company becomes insolvent. The discussions in the case focused on whether FSDs and CNs are classed as 'provable debts', expenses of the insolvency or, indeed, neither.

In Finnerty v Clark, the Court of Appeal has given guidance on what constitutes "good and sufficient" grounds for the removal of administrators. In this case, shareholders of a company in administration were also substantial creditors of the company. They wished the administrators to raise proceedings under Section 244 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (extortionate credit transactions) to challenge loan agreements that had been entered into by the company prior to administration.

The recent case of Stephen Petitioner offers some clarification regarding issues relating to the validity of appointment of administrators.

The Facts

Sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act impose draconian sanctions on directors of liquidated companies who reuse "prohibited names". Prohibited names are names that are identical to, or "suggest an association with", a company that has gone into liquidation and of which they were previously directors. The sanctions include criminal penalties and personal liability for debts. It has always been difficult for advisers to confidently advise directors whether a proposed name for a new company would be a prohibited name, given the vague nature of the phrase "suggest an association".

Sunrise, sunset. Perhaps a matchmaker would have helped. The saga of the dispute between Ventas, Inc. and Health Care Property Investors, Inc. arose five years ago when Sunrise Senior Living Real Estate Investment Trust’s "board of trustees determined that a strategic sale process of its assets would be beneficial to its unitholders, thus effectively putting Sunrise ‘in play’ on the public markets" (per Blair J.A. for the Ontario Court of Appeal) in Ventas, Inc. v.

A recent Alberta appellate decision establishes that a trustee in bankruptcy may sell a franchise agreement to a third party, in spite of objections by the franchisor, under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). The Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision in Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd v Welcome Ford Sales Ltd contains three important messages for franchisors:

As reported in our recent e-update on the case of Echelon Wealth Management Limited (in liquidation), Lord Glennie has determined that liquidators who are removed from office have no right to retain assets as security for remuneration and costs.  Lord Glennie then went on to consider how the court, in determining the level of a liquidator’s remuneration, should view the conduct of the liquidator.