Lear Corporation, a Delaware corporation, its Canadian subsidiaries, and other affiliates, sought an Order under s. 18.6 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) for a declaration that Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (New York) constituted “foreign proceedings” and for a stay of proceedings. Introduced to the CCAA in 1997 to assist with the administration of the increasing number of cross-border insolvencies, s.18.6 is aimed at increasing cooperation, comity, and coordination between courts of different jurisdictions.

In these trying times for our economy and our financial system, every business leader should pay attention to the company’s needs for working capital for the year and prepare for any potential problem related to its lack of liquidities.

Debtor in Possession (“DIP”) financing is essentially new bridge financing that is provided to a corporation as it undergoes insolvency proceedings. The term exists because the corporation maintains possession of its assets during this process as opposed to having a bankruptcy trustee take possession. The concept derived from the United States of America where DIP financing is expressly provided for under c.11 of the Bankruptcy Code and allows a bankrupt corporation to incur new debt for the purposes of carrying on business operations.

As we warned in our earlier articles, “Wage Earner Protection Program Act Comes Into Force - Secured Creditors Be Wary” and “Extension of the WEPPA – Further Protection for Employees”, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) took eff

Over the last few years, debtor-in-possession (DIP) loans have become a fixture in Canadian insolvency proceedings. Initially, in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, courts used inherent jurisdiction to authorize DIP facilities because the statute did not expressly permit them. (Pending legislative changes will put explicit DIP provisions in the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).)

In the course of fewer than 60 days this summer, the North American automotive industry was fundamentally reorganized and restructured as both General Motors and Chrysler reorganized under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Ford was the only one of the “Big 3” not involved in a Court-driven restructuring. Both General Motors and Chrysler, of course, had and indeed continue to have substantial operations in Canada and the Canadian operations were a critical part of the overall restructuring of both companies.

Recent changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have given certain unpaid pension plan contributions priority over a lender’s security if the employer is bankrupt or in receivership. How can a lender monitor the debtor’s pension arrears to assess the extent of the lender’s loss of priority?

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act now provides that certain unpaid pension plan claims rank ahead of a lender’s security in bankruptcy or receivership proceedings. Effective July 7, 2008, sections 81.5 and 81.6 give super-priority status to:

Unpaid suppliers are generally unsecured in liquidation proceedings. A supplier can elevate its unsecured claim by taking security from the debtor or modifying its supply contract by inserting an effective title retention clause. The supplier may also rely on the BIA unpaid supplier provision to assert a super-priority for the return of its goods.

Earlier this year Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (Abitibi) and various related entities proposed to enter into an arrangement with certain classes of its creditors relying on the plan of arrangement provisions in the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA). It is unusual to propose a corporate plan with respect to a company's debt. The CBCA plan of arrangement provision is not fundamentally an insolvency law. The procedure is most often used to restructure securityholder relationships within solvent companies and that is the primary intention.

The decision of the British Columbia Superior Court in Re Ted Leroy Trucking Ltd. was a result of an application for directions with respect to what amounts are properly covered by the Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3 (the “BIA”).