“Insolvency can trigger catastrophic consequences”.

So begins the epic decision released this morning by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6 – a case that considers the impact of insolvency on the employee beneficiaries to a pension plan.

In (Re) Indalex, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) affirmed the super-priority of the security granted to a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lender, over a deemed trust created under provincial pension legislation, in the context of a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceeding. The SCC’s analysis leaves open further issues.

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC, et al. v. United Steelworkers, et al., 2013 SCC 6.

The SCC has affirmed that priority charges created by courts in insolvency proceedings supersede provincial statutory deemed trusts for pension claims.

The SCC decision is welcome news for “debtor-in-possession” (DIP) lenders, who questioned their priority position in the face of the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment in this proceeding, which reached the opposite conclusion.

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).

The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Ontario Court of Appeal today in what is one of the most highly-anticipated cases for the pension and insolvency bars pending before the courts. In Indalex (Re) 2013 SCC 6, the court provided clarity regarding some key questions relating to the governance of an employer-administered pension plan during a proceeding under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The judges split on some of the issues, but here is our brief round-up:

The highly anticipated decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re: Indalex was released this morning.

Here are the key highlights:

This is another post-Indalex pension deficit priority case. Due to factual differences from Indalex, however, the pension claims were largely rejected.

The central question in Rubin v Eurofinance SA, [2012] UKSC 46, was whether the English courts ought to recognise the order or judgment of a foreign court to set aside transactions determined to be preferential or to have been at an undervalue, in circumstances where the defendant in the foreign proceedings was not present in the foreign jurisdiction or had not voluntarily submitted to its courts.

An Ontario Court has provided guidance on determining a person's centre of main interests (COMI) for the purposes of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (as implemented in New Zealand, in the Insolvency (Cross Border) Act 2006, and in Canada).

Under the Model Law, a "foreign main proceeding" is defined as a proceeding in the jurisdiction where the debtor has its COMI, with a presumption that a debtor company's COMI is where its registered office is.

In October 2012, The Futura Loyalty Group Inc. (“Futura”) commenced proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”). On November 13, 2012, Justice Brown of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) considered Futura’s request to permit pre-filing, prepayment obligations to its key customers.