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.

On October 13, 2009, Arclin Canada Ltd./Arclin Canada Ltee. (“Arclin”), who is restructuring under CCAA proceedings and whose American affiliates are restructuring under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, sought the approval of key employee retention program (“KERP”) agreements with its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, and sought sealing orders with respect of the agreements. The KERP was approved by Justice Hoy. The following are some noteworthy points from this case.

In a corporate reorganization under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”), the design of appropriate classes of creditors can be central to the success of the restructuring initiative. The requisite “double majority” for a plan of arrangement to be approved, being a majority in number and two thirds by value of support from creditors, is required per class in order to be binding on that class.

Jameson House Properties Ltd. and Jameson House Ventures Ltd. (the Jameson Companies) were incorporated to develop a 37-storey mixed-use building in downtown Vancouver called Jameson House. By 2008, after many years of planning and development, the Jameson House project was well underway.

Nortel Networks (“Nortel”) brought a motion seeking approval of the sale of various Nortel assets to Nokia Siemens (“Asset Sale Agreement”), and for approval of a Sale Agreement and Bidding Procedures, advanced by Nortel for the purpose of conducting a “stalking horse” bidding process in respect of its Code Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) and Long-Term Evolution Access (“LTE”) assets. As of the date of the motion, Nortel had yet to propose a formal plan of compromise or arrangement.

In the recent case of Re Masonite International Inc., the Ontario Superior Court approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (“CBCA”), notwithstanding that certain insolvent entities were involved. This was a short but complex cross-border restructuring which commenced and was principally completed prior to the recent Canadian insolvency legislation amendments coming into force.

In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for court approval of the Bidding Procedures pertaining to the sale of Nortel’s “Layer 4-7” business, as well as approval of a “Stalking Horse” bidding process.

Prior to filing for protection under the CCAA, Nortel decided that the Layer 4-7 business should be sold. Shortly after filing, Nortel agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Radware for the purchase of the Layer 4-7 business (the “Purchase Agreement”).

In Re Intertan Canada Ltd. (2009), WL 181688 (Ont. S.C.J. [Commercial]), 2009 CarswellOnt 324 [Re Intertan], Morawetz J denied the approval of an amended DIP financing agreement under CCAA proceedings which was granted under the Chapter 11 proceedings in the United States.

In Stomp Pork Farm Ltd., Re, (“Stomp Park Farm”) the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal partially overturned orders granted from the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench which approved debtor in possession financing (“DIP Financing”).

In this case, the debtor owed its first lender $20.5 million, secured against the debtor’s current assets. The lender had priority over the current assets to the extent of $18 million and thereafter shared priority with the debtor’s second lender.

In Kerr Interior Systems Ltd., the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta discussed a number of issues which arose as a result of two creditors registering builders liens against a third party’s property in Saskatchewan.