On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers (Re Indalex). With respect to one critical issue,the SCC confirmed that a court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) charge had priority over a deemed trust (akin to a statutory security interest) securing the debtor's obligation to fund a pension wind-up deficiency on the wind-up of a defined benefit (DB) pension plan.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers et al. (Indalex). This bulletin focuses on pension plan administration issues arising from the Indalex case.

Facts

The long-awaited and highly anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Indalex case was released today. The decision stems from an appeal of an Ontario Court of Appeal decision dealing with a priority dispute between a court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) charge granted under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) and a deemed trust for a wind-up pension deficiency asserted under the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario)(PBA).

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.

This bulletin is a cross-country update presented by the national Restructuring & Insolvency Group. It discusses the key cases across the country involving debtor-inpossession (DIP) financing, court-ordered charges and other priority claims and disputes in recent Canadian insolvency proceedings.

Introduction

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.

Section 8 of the Interest Act (Canada) (the Act) was considered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Grant Forest Products Inc. (Re) in the context of an inter-creditor dispute.

The common law has long recognized a secured creditor’s duty to provide reasonable notice to borrowers before enforcing its security and appointing a receiver. The practical importance of this has become less significant since the codification of the principle of reasonable notice in section 244 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). However, in the recent case of Bank of Montreal v.