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).

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

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.

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 Belgian Constitutional Court declared netting arrangements in insolvency proceedings, which are explicitly allowed under the Belgian Financial Collateral Law of 15 December 2004, unconstitutional where such netting arrangements apply to non-merchants. Despite the numerous criticisms on this decision, a legislative proposal was drafted on 13 September 2011 in order to explicitly exclude non-merchants from the application of the Belgian Financial Collateral Law.

On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted the Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding the Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law, among other changes, introduced amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Restoring Debtor’s Solvency or Recognising it Bankrupt”, No. 2343-XII, dated 14 May 1992, as amended (the “Bankruptcy Law”).

On 22 September 2011, the Parliament of Ukraine adopted Law of Ukraine No. 3795-VI “On Amendments to Several Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding Regulation of Legal Relations between Creditors and Receivers of Financial Services” (the “Law”). The Law became effective on 16 October 2011. Although the positive impact of certain amendments is rather ambiguous at this stage, the Law is likely to reduce risks in the financial system.

The major amendments envisaged by the Law cover the following key areas:

Loans and security

Every business must manage risk. Whenever such risk turns into reality, the consequences must be accepted and declared for the well being of the wider economic environment. The purpose of this article is to analyse the legal framework of the commencement of insolvency proceedings at a debtor’s request and the sanctions applicable when such a framework is surpassed.

The collection of the insolvency estate is one of the important phases of insolvency proceedings. The Bulgarian Commerce Act (Issue No. 48 dated 18 June 1991, as amended) (the “Act”) provides certain tools to facilitate the collection of funds and other assets in order to “maximise” the insolvency estate. One such tool is the ability of the insolvency administrator, or the creditors to the insolvency estate, to challenge the validity of acts and transactions performed by the insolvent company after the insolvency trigger date.