The aggregate costs associated with a formal court-supervised insolvency proceeding can be substantial. In Canada, the obligation to pay these restructuring costs are typically secured by court-ordered charges over all of the property of the debtor and can rank in priority to the liens of secured creditors in the same collateral. As a result, these costs can have a material impact on the ultimate net recovery received by creditors. But how is the burden of these costs shared among secured creditors?

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Murphy v Sally Creek Environs Corporation, 2010 ONCA 312 (“Sally Creek”) is a cautionary tale for Trustees in bankruptcy (“Trustees”) and the counsel who represent them.1 In that case, the Trustee’s fees and those of its legal counsel were drastically reduced on a taxation, a cost award was made against the Trustee personally and the Trustee’s conduct was impugned in a detailed decision of the Bankruptcy Registrar and the Court of Appeal.

Able Automotive Ltd v Cameron-Okolita Inc, 2010 SKQB 34

Able brought a motion to appeal the bankruptcy Registrar’s decision that Able was a secured creditor for a certain amount, but disallowing its claim for certain costs, including insurance, a new engine for the vehicle, and storage charges, legal fees and costs.

An increasing number of restructuring cases involve several creditors with security over varied assets or asset classes. In such cases there is often a dispute over allocation of the costs of the reorganization. This is particularly true in failed restructurings where costs are high and realizations are low.

The restructuring proceedings of Canwest Publishing Inc and affiliated entities (“Canwest”) has recently provided secured lenders and particularly debtor-in-possession lenders with some food for thought.

In March of this year, four former non-unionized employees of Canwest brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) for the appointment of representative counsel to protect the interests of themselves and similarly situated former employees in the Canwest Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) restructuring proceedings.

Philip Gaidy and Judy-Kae McLeod v. Chrysler Financial Services Canada Inc. CV-09-095088-00 (S.C.J.) (Lauwers, J.)

Gaidy leased a 2007 Dodge truck from Chrysler Financial (“CF”) as lessor. McLeod entered into a conditional sales contract for a 2006 Hummer with CF as vendor.

Both were chronically late in payment and hid the vehicles. CF recovered the vehicles. Both applied to court to force CF to allow them to re-instate their agreements under s. 66(2) of the Personal Property Security Act (“PPSA”).

In Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. v. Chiang, an Order was granted in 2006 compelling the bankrupt and others to attend for an examination by the trustee under section 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In 2008, the trustee applied under the same section to examine the bankrupt and others again.

Section 163(1) of the BIA provides:

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

In 2008, the catastrophic effect of the credit crunch spread to most world economies. As in previous recessions, insolvency has affected increasing numbers of individuals and companies, and parties to agreements to arbitrate are increasingly likely to find themselves dealing with insolvent companies. What are the issues to bear in mind?

1/ Prior insolvency

Generally with a winding-up petition, if the petitioner is successful in obtaining a winding-up order, the petitioner will have its costs of the  proceedings. If, on the other hand, the petition is dismissed, then the petitioner has been  unsuccessful and it should pay the costs of the proceedings. We explore the Companies Court’s  treatment of costs in three recent decisions below.

From what Assets should a Petitioner have its Costs?