Insolvent companies with under-funded employee pension plans that want to borrow money to keep operating and ultimately return to profitability may find it tougher to find new financing as a result of a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision.

The Court ruled on April 7 that Indalex Limited (and certain affiliated companies), the second largest aluminum extrusion company in North America, which administered two pension plans, one for employees and the other for executives, was obliged to pay its pension

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its long-awaited decision in Re Indalex Limited 1. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dated February 18, 2010, and allowed the appeals of the United Steelworkers and a certain group of retired executives. The Court of Appeal ordered FTI Consulting Canada ULC (the Monitor) to pay from the reserve fund (the Reserve Fund) held by the Monitor from the sale of Indalex Limited, Indalex Holdings (B.C.) Ltd., 6326765 Canada Inc. and Novar Inc.

In Canada, as in the US, corporate debtors are permitted with court approval to obtain DIP financing on a super-priority basis. The Order typically provides protections as hard as a nutshell, including that pension claims cannot crack the shell of protection and are subordinated to the new DIP loan. A recent Canadian decision, however, held that certain pension claims could crack the nut wide open and should be paid ahead of a DIP loan. Re Indalex Limited, 2011 ONCA 265 (Apr. 7, 2011).

On April 7, 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered a decision in the restructuring proceedings involving Indalex Limited (Indalex) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that is inconsistent with prior non-binding comments by the same court relating to the priority of certain pension claims. The decision has material implications for institutional financiers that lend against the inventory, accounts receivable or cash collateral of businesses with Ontario regulated defined benefit pension plans and for the access of those businesses to secured credit.

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.

The waiver of Solicitor/Client privilege by a bankrupt company is a difficult matter and one distinct from the waiver of such privilege by an individual bankrupt. As there is nothing in the BIA that either gives or denies a trustee the right to waive solicitor/client privilege on behalf of a company,Hahaha yes with a lot of candles! the courts have had to turn to the common law for guidance on the issue.

May a deceased person who dies in bankruptcy having failed to complete his duties under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act be discharged from bankruptcy?

This was the question that the British Columbia Supreme Court wrestled with earlier this year in a reported decision that began by noting that there was no jurisdiction on point.

Re Gyro-Trac (USA) Inc. (“Gyro-Trac””) is the first appellate decision to consider the centre of main interests (COMI) of a corporate group. In that case, the Quebec Court Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision to recognize proceedings under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (“Chapter 11”) and to stay Canadian bankruptcy proceedings against Canadian members of a corporate group.

Pursuant to section 38 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”) a creditor of the bankrupt estate can obtain the trustee’s right to pursue estate litigation where the trustee refuses or fails to pursue such litigation. In a recent Ontario case, Indcondo Building Corp. v. Sloan [2010], CarswellOnt 9785, the Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the limitation period for the assigned litigation commences with the trustee’s knowledge of the facts giving rise to the claim or the assignee’s knowledge of those facts.

In its recent decision in Century Services Inc v Canada,1 the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) held that, in the context of a Companies’Creditors Arrangement Act2 (the “CCAA”) proceeding, the Crown does not have a superpriority claim over the property of a debtor for unremitted goods and services tax (“GST”) amounts. The decision of the SCC majority rejected existing appellate-level case law, and brought the priority of Crown claims in-line with what they are in bankruptcy proceedings.