In 2017, a number of insolvency cases were litigated, in various provinces across Canada, which may materially affect the realization and recovery rights of commercial lenders in restructuring and insolvency proceedings. This article summarizes the core issue of importance to lenders in each of these cases and provides an update on their appeal status.

November 2, 2017 September 11, 2017

INTEGRITY OF COURT-ORDERED SALE PROCESS

Squestre de Gestion EGR inc. et Lemieux Nolet inc., syndics de faillite et gestionnaires

In a September 19, 2017 decision from the bench in the matter of Bank of Montreal v. Kappeler Masonry Corporation, et. al.1 (“Kappeler Masonry”), Madam Justice Conway of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) confirmed that commingling of construction project receipts in a receiver’s estate account is fatal to a Construction Lien Act (Ontario) (the “CLA”) trust claim in the face of a debtor’s bankruptcy.

This is the second instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization or sale of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

Voici le premier d’une série d’articles portant sur l’insolvabilité de grands détaillants au Canada considérée sous divers angles. La Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (Canada) (la « LACC ») est le principal texte de loi qui régit la réorganisation ou la vente de grandes sociétés débitrices au Canada; il est l’équivalent du chapitre 11 du U.S. Bankruptcy Code (le « chapitre 11 »).

This article is the first instalment in a series examining large retail insolvencies in Canada from the perspective of various stakeholders. The Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA) is the principal statute for the reorganization, or sale, of large corporate debtors in Canada and the functional equivalent to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Chapter 11) in the United States. Accordingly, our series focuses on CCAA proceedings, with references to alternate insolvency proceedings where applicable.

On June 16, 2017, Canada’s Department of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published for comments a package of draft regulations and guidelines setting out the final details of Canada’s bail-in framework and related total loss absorbency capacity (TLAC) capital standard for Canada’s six domestic systemically important banks (DSIBs). The bail-in regulations are expected to be finalized in the fall of 2017 and will take effect 180 days later.

In what may prove either to be a landmark decision or a mere outliner confined to its unique facts, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court of Appeal") in Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited, et al.1 has overturned an earlier decision and lifted the stay of proceedings against a court-appointed receiver to allow a union to proceed with a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the receiver.

On April 24, 2017, in Orphan Well Association v.Grant Thornton Limited, the Alberta Court of Appeal (Court) upheld Chief Justice N.

La Cour du Banc de la Reine de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») a clarifié la façon dont seront traitées les demandes en cas d’abus dans le cadre de procédures en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers des compagnies (la « LACC »). Dans sa décision récente concernant l’affaire Lightstream Resources Ltd.

The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (Court) has provided clarity on how oppression claims will be adjudicated in the context of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In the recent decision in Lightstream Resources Ltd. (Re), the Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear oppression claims, but held that the exercise of this discretion is limited to appropriate circumstances.