The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), which arose from the restructuring proceedings of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and was released on December 6, 2010, is a landmark decision in Canadian insolvency law.

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in Indalex Limited, ordering that the reserved sale proceeds of a going-concern sale involving the Canadian Indalex entities (“Indalex Canada”), held by the court-appointed monitor, FTI Consulting Inc.

In a client update released earlier this month, we discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the CCAA proceedings of Indalex Limited. In that case, the Court decided that Indalex’s pension plan wind-up deficiency claims had priority over Indalex’s CCAA secured lender in the context of that case. Of concern is the "chill" that decision may have on secured lending in Ontario to borrowers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 on April 7, 2011. The decision comes as a surprise to many pension and insolvency professionals, lenders and pension plan sponsors. The court, essentially, directed that monies held in reserve by the monitor appointed under the federal Companies Creditors Arrangement Act should be used to pay off pension fund deficits in preference to secured creditors.

Background

This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal surprised many by deciding that in the context of the CCAA proceedings of Indalex, pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over security held by secured DIP lenders. The Court granted priority for the entire wind-up deficiency of two pension plans over the DIP lender’s security. If not reversed on appeal, the ruling creates a potential worst case scenario for secured lenders in Ontario and could affect availability of credit for all employers who provide defined benefit pension plans for their employees.

In Ferme CGR Enr, senc (Syndic de) 2010 QCCA 719, the Québec Court of Appeal decided that it is not necessary to put the partners of a Québec general partnership into bankruptcy when the partnership itself is put into bankruptcy. In doing so, the court initially relied upon authorities interpreting the relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. In addition, the court supported its decision with an analysis of the legal nature of Québec general partnerships and, as a result, modified the ownership structure of partnerships in Québec.

The Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Hydro One Inc. v. Ontario (Financial Services Commission) on January 11, 2010. This was an appeal from the Ontario Divisional Court – see our Labour & Employment in the News dated April 18, 2008, that reported on the Divisional Court’s decision. The court dismissed the appeal, in favour of members of the Hydro One Pension Plan (the “Plan”).

At long last, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and theCompanies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have come into force, providing licensees of intellectual property (IP) with some additional level of protection.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have recently come into force that purportedly protect licensees of intellectual property (IP) if their licensors become insolvent or bankrupt. There are, however, a number of uncertainties surrounding the scope of protection afforded by these amendments. Until these uncertainties are resolved, licensees may wish to consider augmenting their statutory rights by contractual and other legal mechanisms. A Bankruptcy Remote Entity (BRE) is one potential mechanism.

In these trying times for our economy and our financial system, every business leader should pay attention to the company’s needs for working capital for the year and prepare for any potential problem related to its lack of liquidities.