The saying goes that when the United States sneezes, Canada gets a cold. Accordingly, when the most recent economic recession hit the United States, the financial health of many Canadian companies predictably suffered.

A recent decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench1 has raised some questions about purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) proceeds and cross-collateralization of assets secured by these types of security interests. It has been suggested that this decision is unique and establishes that using a PMSI as collateral for other indebtedness of the debtor is dangerous. But is this decision really so radical?

Facts:

Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

In 2005, Justice Blair, for the Ontario Court of Appeal, cautioned courts acting pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA") that their jurisdiction, broad as it was, was not without limit. The setting was the restructuring of Stelco, a complicated and hotly contested affair, which by then had been ongoing for fourteen months or so.

The December issue of our e-communiqué considered Justice Pepall’s October 13, 2009 decision to grant CCAA protection to Canwest Global Communications Corporation and a number of related entities. As noted, the decision functions as an excellent guide to the recent legislative amendments affecting the grant of an initial order.

Extension of stay and Settlement Agreement

Directors and officers of corporations are often subject to potential personal liabilities as a result of their positions. This potential for personal liability may be increased in the insolvency context, where a corporation’s creditors will seek to collect on certain debts from alternate sources, such as directors and officers. Directors and officers often utilize insurance and various court mechanisms in order to mitigate their personal liabilities.

On September 18, 2009, after years of Parliamentary delay dating back to 2005, wide-ranging amendments to Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) (the “Amendments”) came into force, providing, among other things, new protections for licensees of intellectual property.

It is important to note that the Amendments only apply in the CCAA restructuring and BIA proposal context, and not to conventional bankruptcies or receiverships.

Significant insolvency law amendments were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (the “Amendments”). The Amendments were contained in Bill C-55 which received Royal Assent on November 25, 2005 and in Bill C-12 which received Royal assent on December 14, 2007, but the Amendments were not proclaimed into force until September 18, 2009.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.