The financing of commercial litigation has grown enormously since it first appeared on the scene in the US, about 15 years ago. While still small relative to the overall US financial market, it is estimated that more than $11 billion has been invested in litigation finance in the US last year alone. In essence, lenders (often referred to as “funders”) provide commercial claimants and contingency law firms with the capital needed to prosecute legal claims which the funders believe have a strong likelihood of success.

The recent decision inErnst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal (OCA) analyzed the criteria for establishing voidable transfers at undervalue under section 96 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act RSC 1985, c B-3 (BIA), with a particular focus on the application of “corporate attribution” in the context of insolvency.

Backstop commitments have become commonplace in large corporate bankruptcy cases – they provide certainty to the debtor that it will have the funds needed to satisfy its obligations to creditors under its plan of reorganization and that it will have liquidity to operate post-bankruptcy as the reorganized entity. Backstop commitments are also a way for certain creditors to generate some additional return in the form of commitment fees and expense reimbursements in exchange for their agreement to backstop all or a material portion of a proposed rights offering or other financing arrangement.

As Canada prepares to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, factors such as the elimination of government pandemic support and rising interest rates may significantly affect lenders’ decisions in 2022. Many expect that withdrawal of government funding will create a wave of insolvency filings in Canada. Although there remains significant uncertainty, secured lenders may be comforted by recent court decisions across Canada that have affirmed lenders’ rights and remedies in cases of default. This article summarizes these recent decisions and offers implications for lenders going forward.

Considerations of “environmental, social and governance” (or ESG) criteria with respect to a company’s management and operations continue to take on greater importance in lenders’ and investors’ credit and investment decisions. How a borrower or a target company measures up to these ever-developing ESG standards will impact its cost of capital and value to potential investors and acquirors.

Foreign companies seeking to protect their overseas assets from their creditors have often turned to the United States for immediate relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Establishing jurisdiction in the US for purposes of a bankruptcy filing has proved easy – the establishment of a nominal professional fees retainer with a local law firm on the eve of a bankruptcy filing will suffice.

Earlier this year, Mexican airline, Grupo Aeromexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (together with its affiliates, the “Debtors”) announced that their creditor body had overwhelmingly voted to approve their proposed Chapter 11 restructuring plan (the “Plan”) save for one class of unsecured creditor claims that voted to reject the Plan. Those claims were held by Invictus Global Management, LLC (“Invictus”), a distressed investment fund that recently purchased the claims subject to a “plan support provision” which purportedly compelled the claimholder to support the Debtors’ Plan.

The merchant cash advance (“MCA”) industry recently provided two different bankruptcy courts with an opportunity to consider the characterization of MCA funding transactions as either “true sales” of receivables or “disguised loans”.

Does a claim for a balance of sale of shares, originally owed by one of the two entities that amalgamated to become the debtor, constitute an equity claim pursuant to section 2(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act1 (hereafter the BIA) in the context of a proposal of that same debtor?

If so, what are the consequences for the Seller?

Background

Questions en litige

Est ce qu’une créance relative à un solde de prix de vente d’actions, initialement due par une des deux entités ayant fusionné pour devenir la débitrice, constitue une réclamation relative à des capitaux propres au sens de l’article 2 (1) de la Loi sur la faillite et l’insolvabilité1 (ci après la « LFI ») dans le cadre de la proposition de cette même débitrice?

Le cas échéant, quelles sont les conséquences pour le Vendeur?

Trame factuelle