In a series of cases in 2009 culminating in the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morawetz in Re Indalex Limited (“Indalex”), the CCAA Courts have considered the appropriateness of approving the granting of a guarantee in connection with a cross-border DIP facility. This issue has been at the forefront – with varying results – in a number of recent CCAA cases in which DIP financing was dependent on the CCAA debtor providing a secured guarantee of the obligations of the parent or affiliate company’s DIP financing in its own Chapter 11 case.

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.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

Innovation Credit Union v. Bank of Montreal [2009] S.J. No. 147; 2009 SKCA 35, on appeal from 2007 SKQB 471

October 1991:     Saskatchewan farmer James Buist (“Debtor”) granted a general security agreement to Innovation Credit Union (“CU”). The general security agreement was not perfected under the Saskatchewan Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”) by registration.

The extraordinary turmoil in the financial markets in recent times has caused many major economies, including the Canadian economy, to enter into a recessionary period. With the financial sector still trying to cope with the shocks of 2007 and 2008, prospects for a full Canadian economic recovery in the near future appear uncertain. Recent decisions by well-established Canadian companies such as Nortel Networks and Masonite International Corporation (a Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal has rationalized the approach to be taken by Courts in considering appeals in CCAA cases.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently permitted a debtor to establish a "hardship" fund to pay obligations incurred prior to the debtor's CCAA filing to local suppliers operating in the debtor’s community.

Vanquish Oil & Gas (“Vanquish”), now in receivership, was a trustee under a joint operating agreement for an oil well. It was required to remit 45% of the well’s net production proceeds to a proportional owner - either Karl Oil and Gas Ltd. or Choice Resources Corporation (who disputed the entitlement at the time).

The Wage Earner Protection Program Act, S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the “WEPPA”), came into force on July 7, 2008. This paper will set out the implications of the WEPPA on insolvency practice and provide a brief analysis of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and 383838 B.C. Ltd. (Re), 2009 BCSC 41 (“LeRoy Trucking”), the only reported decision regarding the WEPPA (as at the date of this paper) since the legislation came into force.

I. Introduction to the WEPPA

Magna Enterprises Corp. (“MEC”), a foreign bankrupt corporation, brought an application for ancillary relief pursuant to s. 18.6 of the CCAA. Section 18.6 gives the court the power to “make such orders and grant such relief as it considers appropriate to facilitate, approve or implement arrangements that will result in a co-ordination of proceedings under this Act with any foreign proceeding”.