Section 11.01 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) states that no order under Section 11 or 11.02 of the CCAA has the effect of: (a) prohibiting a person from requiring immediate payment for goods, services, the use of leased or licensed property or other valuable consideration provided after the order is made; or (b) requiring the further advance of money or credit.

As most are aware by now, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) recently caused alarm by finding that claims of pension plan beneficiaries ranked higher than the super-priority debtor-in-possession financing charge (the “DIP Charge”) created by the amended initial order (the “CCAA Order”) in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings of the Indalex group of Canadian companies (collectively, “Indalex”).

During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.

The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.

Background

Are the directors of a corporation which has been placed into receivership entitled to retain counsel on behalf of the corporation without prior approval of the Receiver or the court?

According to a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the answer is “Yes”.

Adananc

On February 28, 2011, Adanac Molybdenum Corporation announced that it successfully implemented its plan of compromise and arrangement and emerged from CCAA protection. It was announced that, on implementation, Adanac’s outstanding common shares were consolidated on a 150 to 1 basis with 24,698,888 post-consolidation common shares issued to creditors.

Adanac owns the Ruby Creek Project, located in northwest British Columbia.

Ambrilia Biopharma

In the recent case of Peterborough (City) v. Kawartha Native Housing Society, the Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to determine:

The leading international insolvency practitioners and thought leaders in the world will convene for the 11th Annual Conference of the International Insolvency Institute at Columbia University in New York on June 13-14, 2011. The Conference will feature reports and analyses of the world’s most important current international insolvency issues and controversies described by speakers who are recognized globally as preeminent in their field.

Unremitted source deductions are subject to a deemed trust in favour of the Crown under Section 227 of the Income Tax Act (the “ITA”), Section 86 of theEmployment Insurance Act (the “EIA”) and Section 23 of the Canada Pension Plan (the “CPP”). Subsection 227(4) of the ITA creates the trust for income tax deductions and Subsection 227(4.1) creates a super-priority lien in favour of the Crown, in the amount of the trust, over all the debtor’s assets.

INTRODUCTION

As international trade grows, financial institutions and manufacturers of equipment recognize that international sales or globalization of their business is a requirement to staying competitive.

In its recent decision in Century Services Inc v Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) held that, in the context of a Companies’Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the “CCAA”) proceeding, the Crown does not have a superpriority claim over the property of a debtor for unremitted goods and services tax (“GST”) amounts. The decision of the SCC majority rejected existing appellate-level case law, and brought the priority of Crown claims in-line with what they are in bankruptcy proceedings.