The U.S. doctrine of equitable subordination (as now set out in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code) allows a U.S. court to subordinate all or part of a creditor's claim to the claims of other creditors if the creditor has engaged in inequitable conduct that gives the creditor an unfair advantage or is injurious to the other creditors. Will the Canadian courts apply the doctrine?

The recent economic turmoil has brought to the forefront concerns by licensees as to what happens to their rights to licensed intellectual property upon the bankruptcy of a licensor. Unfortunately, under Canadian law, the answer to that question is not clear.

Background

Section 147 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) provides that the Superintendent’s Levy is applied to defray the supervisory expenses of the Superintendent, will be charged on dividend payments made by the trustee.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Saulnier (Receiver of) v. Saulnier has changed the basis for determining whether a licence is property under a provincial Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) and the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

Currently, neither the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act nor the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act defines “director.” However, pending legislative amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) will include an expansive definition of “director” that includes any person “occupying the position of director,” regardless of his or her formal title.

As the pace of restructuring activity in Canada continues to accelerate (see the partial listing below), international creditors should be aware that there are credit risks in doing business with a company that is restructuring in either of Canada's two restructuring systems. (These are, briefly, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which is generally used for small to medium sized restructurings and the Companies Creditors' Arrangement Act which is generally used for large cases and resembles proceedings under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code).

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada on October 24, 2008. The decision provides welcome clarification concerning the nature of government licenses and confirms that at least certain kinds of licenses constitute property for the purposes of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and for the purposes of Canadian personal property security legislation. The decision is also important because it takes a purposive and commercial approach to the interpretation of bankruptcy and personal property security legislation.

Nortel Networks Corp. of Canada, one of the world’s leading suppliers of fixed line phone network equipment, filed for protection from creditors Wednesday under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. A pioneer in the development of network switches, routers, and fiber-optic technologies used by many of the world’s top telecommunications carriers, Nortel ranked as Canada’s largest company by value at the height of the global telecom market boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s.

For most lenders, taking security from their borrowers is pretty straightforward: take a general security agreement covering inventory, receivables and all other collateral, add some guarantees, and then look to see if there are any other loose ends that need tying up. But for businesses in regulated industries where some sort of government-issued licence is a threshold requirement, it's not that easy.

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