The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

BAIL-OUT DÉJÀ-VU

On February 1, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers. By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the priority of pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.

The Moldovan Parliament adopted a new insolvency law on 29 June 2012. The In-solvency Act No. 149 (Act No. 149), which will enter into force on 14 March 2013, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, as its main goal appears to be the optimiza-tion of the existing insolvency procedures.

Following the new act’s entry into force, insolvency cases shall fall under the compe-tence of the court of appeal where the seat of the debtor is located. Also each such court of appeal shall hold a public register of insolvency cases.

Timing

On January 27, 2012, Justice Newbould of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) released his decision in Temple (Re),1 holding that the Ontario Limitations Act, 20022 (the “Act”) does not apply to a bankruptcy application and does not operate to extinguish a debt owing to a creditor.

The Ontario Limitations Act, 2002

Introduction

Does the dissolution of a corporation that is in receivership terminate the receivership? Until the recent decision of Meta Energy Inc. v. Algatec Solarwerke Brandenberg GMBH, 2012 ONSC 175, 2012 ONSC 4873, there was no previous court decision directly on point. The answer to the question is “no.”

Background

A recent case illustrates the importance of clarity in the contractual arrangements associated with the disposition of a debtor’s assets. In the case, the Court appointed receiver was given Court approval for an auction services agreement. Under that agreement, the auctioneer was to conduct an auction sale of the debtor’s assets and was entitled to charge and collect a buyer’s premium equal to a minimum of 12% of the sales price.

The Austrian Act on Financial Collateral (Finanzsicherheiten-Gesetz; FinSG), which regulates the granting and enforcement of financial collateral arrangements between participants in the financial markets, has recently been amended with effect from 30 June 2011. Changes include the extension of the scope of application of the law.

Since the enactment of the new insolvency law in 2006, its proceedings have been amended many times to improve and simplify bankruptcy. In the past few years, the economic downturn has caused more and more companies to request court protection with the hope of undergoing reorganisation, realising that insolvency need not be the death of the company but, rather, a second chance.