That darn Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sure is raising some interesting insolvency issues for derivatives market participants (and their lawyers of course). It’s interesting (at least for us insolvency nerds) to think about how some of those issues might play out under Canadian insolvency laws. Here are some thoughts on one of the recent cases with my Canadian spin.

On March 22, 2010, the Superior Court of Quebec approved a plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA) that allowed a corporation, MEGA Brands Inc., to achieve a worldwide restructuring of its business under a corporate statute, rather than a more typical insolvency and restructuring statute like the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act.

A recent decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench1 has raised some questions about purchase-money security interest (“PMSI”) proceeds and cross-collateralization of assets secured by these types of security interests. It has been suggested that this decision is unique and establishes that using a PMSI as collateral for other indebtedness of the debtor is dangerous. But is this decision really so radical?

Facts:

Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

Directors and officers of corporations are often subject to potential personal liabilities as a result of their positions. This potential for personal liability may be increased in the insolvency context, where a corporation’s creditors will seek to collect on certain debts from alternate sources, such as directors and officers. Directors and officers often utilize insurance and various court mechanisms in order to mitigate their personal liabilities.

On October 13, 2009, a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Florida issued an opinion invalidating, under U.S. fraudulent conveyance law, guaranties and security interests given by certain subsidiaries to secure the $200 million first lien and $300 million second lien credit facilities made to the subsidiaries’ parent corporation, TOUSA, Inc. (In re TOUSA, Inc., 2009 WL 3519403, at *1 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009).

In dealing with collateral provided by a third party to support the obligations of the prime debtor, lenders and their counsel need to remember the impact of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Ontario’s Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) was amended to broaden the definition of the word “debtor.” However, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act’s (BIA) definition of a “secured creditor” is still restricted to a person holding a charge or a lien “as security for debt due or accruing to the person (lender) holding the debt.”

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.

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.

Nortel