In a recent decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) Proceedings ofTimminco Ltd. et al.[1], Justice Morawetz of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice [Commercial List] observed that the disclaimer provisions of the CCAA apply equally in the context of a restructuring plan and a sales process.

In the recent decision in the CCAA Proceedings of Timminco Ltd. et al.[¹], the Ontario Court of Appeal has affirmed the CCAA Court’s jurisdiction to grant super-priority status to DIP financing charges (including over provincial deemed trusts) and, effectively, confirmed that a supervising CCAA Court has a broad discretion to do so.

In Re Indalex Limited, the OCA surprised insolvency, pension and financial services professionals by ruling that pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over the claims of DIP lenders in the context of Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

On Thursday, December 1, 2011, a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Re Indalex.

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently addressed the issue of pension deficits in the context of a restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"). However, unlike past decisions, in Re Indalex the Court held that such deficits may have priority against monies advanced under interim debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing agreements authorized by a CCAA judge. This apparent departure from the conventional understanding of the priority of pension deficit claims and related issues should raise concerns for lenders, employers, and plan administrators.

In 2005, Parliament passed a comprehensive package of reforms to Canadian insolvency and restructuring laws. The purpose of these amendments was to provide additional protections for employees, codify existing case law and practice, bolster the proposal process and conform Canadian laws concerning cross-border insolvencies to international practice.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) has decided that the sale of a business by way of a pre-pack administration[1] did not result in a transfer of employees under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, (TUPE Regulations or TUPE).

TUPE Regulations

Introduction

This Note deals with the potential liabilities under English Law of the directors and officers (secretary and managers) of a UK company in the event of its (potential) insolvency.  

Summary  

Directors - and, to a lesser extent, other officers of a company - face a number of areas of potential personal liability. Of most relevance is the liability of the directors for ‘wrongful trading’.  

The priorities of some pension claims on bankruptcy and receivership changed as a result of amendments effective July 8, 2008 to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. (Canada) (the “BIA”).  

Priority Before the Amendments

The decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal earlier this year in Slater Steel* exposed 10 directors, officers and employees to possible personal liability of $20 million with no meaningful recourse against the insolvent Slater Steel or its assets. This is a reminder that failure to recognize and fulfill fiduciary obligations for a pension plan can expose you to substantial personal liability.