On April 7, 2011, in Indalex Limited (Re), 2011 ONCA 265 (Re Indalex), the Ontario Court of Appeal (the Court) held that in certain circumstances a pension plan wind-up deficit should be paid in priority to claims of secured creditors, including amounts outstanding under a court-approved debtor-in-possession facility (the DIP Facility).

Recently, in Re AbitibiBowater Inc., the Province of Newfoundland sought a court order granting it access to the electronic data room of Abitibi created for the purpose of dissemination of certain non-public financial and operation information to its counsel, certain creditors, and the Monitor. The Court denied the Province’s application on the basis that it could not prove itself to be a legitimate stakeholder of Abitibi, and on several policy grounds.

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:

In Brookfield Bridge Lending Fund Inc. v.

On June 5 2008 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a plan concerning failed assetbacked commercial paper (ABCP). The restructuring called for in the plan can therefore proceed immediately, subject to any appeals from the court approval. This update is a brief survey of the key developments in the efforts to rescue the affected Canadian market for ABCP, which broke down in August 2007.

Breakdown of Market and the Montreal Accord

Advising directors and officers of companies that are in the shadow of insolvency regarding the scope of their personal liability can be a daunting task as directors and officers can be exposed to significant personal liability in a variety of areas of the law. Directors are now accountable not only to the corporation and its shareholders but also under certain circumstances to employees, creditors, customers, suppliers, and governments.

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.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Court rejected a bankrupt music composer’s argument that a security interest the composer had granted in royalty based distributions should be ineffective following his bankruptcy.

In Royal Bank of Canada v. Head West Energy Inc., the Court of Appeal considered the priority of two security interest registrations against the same collateral, namely industrial camp trailers, and the obligations, pursuant to the Personal Property Security Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-7 (“PPSA”) of a security holder to amend its registration to reflect a name change when the security holder has knowledge of that name change.

In Royal Bank v. 2021847 Ontario Ltd. et al. (2007), Carswell Ont. 8283, the plaintiff Royal Bank sought summary judgment against the guarantors of a credit facility it granted to 2021847 Ontario Ltd. (“2021847”). The amount the plaintiff sought against the guarantors was the deficiency remaining after the plaintiff had appointed a receiver over the assets of the debtor company. The proceeds from the realization of the receivership were insufficient to payout 2021847’s credit facility.