Debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP financing”), which is new short-term financing obtained by an insolvent company after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding, is a recurring theme for two primary reasons. First, insolvent companies are generally desperate for an immediate infusion of cash to sustain operations. Second, creditors will usually provide such financing only on a super-priority basis, jumping ahead of existing secured creditors of the insolvent company.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Saulnier v. Royal Bank of Canada1 ("Saulnier"), an important case involving fishing licences in the context of a secured lending transaction and an assignment in bankruptcy. This case contains what we believe is significant commentary on classifying certain governmental licences as "property" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (the "BIA") and "personal property" under the Personal Property Security Act (Nova Scotia) (the "Nova Scotia PPSA").

Triangular (or cross-affiliate) set-off has been at issue recently in the Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act (Canada) (CCAA) proceedings with respect to SemCAMS ULC (SemCAMS) (and certain other of its Canadian affiliates). In one application, SemCAMS successfully challenged Nexen Marketing's (Nexen) attempts to effect triangular set-off where Nexen lacked a contractual right to do so.

Nexen Marketing was a party to a number of agreements with SemCAMS and certain of its affiliates:

The Humber Valley Resort Corporation and related companies (collectively, “Humber Valley”) applied for, and was granted, an Initial Order from the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Trial Division) staying proceedings against it for one month under the CCAA. On this same date, the Court authorized a DIP lending facility of up to $600,000.00, with a first priority charge over various of Humber Valley’s assets. At the end of the initial stay period, Humber Valley brought two further applications.

Although the global “credit crisis” phenomenon has been dominating the headlines for some time, the implications of it in Canada may just be beginning in the form of increased distressed M&A activity. The past decade of unprecedented growth and the abundance of liquidity has been replaced in the past few months by a more conservative lending environment. Around the country, bank loan officers are busy reviewing financial statements and covenant compliance certificates, and assessing loan renewals of corporate clientele.

The Debtor’s Freeze: Protecting Your Client’s Assets

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Protecting Assets

Introduction

As part of an intended comprehensive amendment of German insolvency law, the German Federal Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft of a new law to facilitate the reorganization of enterprises (“Reorganization Facilitation Act”). The new law will curtail the rights of shareholders of insolvent companies and allow capital measures and other corporate measures to be taken in the insolvency of a company without the participation of the shareholders. The new regulation is of interest to investors because it will significantly simplify the purchase of the shares of an insolvent company.

The impact of insolvency proceedings on arbitral proceedings is becoming an increasingly important consideration for parties. Two scenarios can be generally envisioned: (i) a company files for insolvency while it is engaged in arbitral proceedings; or (ii) arbitral proceedings are initiated after insolvency proceedings have commenced. In both scenarios, the parties need to assess how the insolvency proceeding affects the arbitral proceedings. This article assesses the impact of insolvency proceedings initiated in Germany on foreign arbitral proceedings.

On 14 February 2008 the German Federal Parliament deliberated a draft bill submitted by the Federal Ministry of Justice concerning the reform of Germany’s insolvency law. The draft bill envisions, in particular, regulation for stability against insolvency (Insolvenzfestigkeit) for licence agreements.