On August 27, 2019, Quebec's Court of Appeal overturned the Quebec Superior Court's decision to give post-filing claims priorities over secured creditors' claims, stating that section 11.01 of the CCAA does not give automatic priority to post-filing creditors.

Background

The Québec Court of Appeal confirmed that unpaid post-filing suppliers, which had neither sought a court-ordered charge to secure their post-filing claims nor availed themselves of their right to stop supplying goods or services to the debtor, cannot claim an implicit priority on the proceeds of sales of assets in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings.

Background: going-concern sales of optometry clinics

A Manitoba Court recently offered guidance on how to approach an appeal from a notice of disallowance or determination of a claim under section 135(4) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 (“BIA”). Existing jurisprudence provided conflicting positions on whether to treat such appeals as true appeals or a hearing de novo. True appeals generally restrict the evidentiary record before the court to the evidence that was before the trustee. In a de novo hearing, the appeal court considers fresh evidence as a matter of course.

In most restructuring proceedings, money is needed to fund the professionals and the management team retained to preserve value in the insolvent company. This money must often be borrowed, and is typically secured by "super-priority" charges granted by the Court. An issue that has recently been before the Alberta courts is whether these charges also rank ahead of other claims that also have priority according to federal legislation.

In an April 30, 2019 endorsement accompanying a receivership order made in the matter of Royal Bank of Canada and D.M. Robichaud Associates Ltd. (“D.M. Robichaud”), Justice Hainey of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List (the “Court”) held that the receiver’s charge and the receiver’s borrowings charge should have priority over deemed trusts under provincial construction legislation.1

In Yukon (Government of) v. Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2019 YKSC 39 (“Yukon Zinc”), the Yukon Supreme Court recently lifted a stay of proceedings imposed in proposal proceedings commenced in British Columbia by Yukon Zinc, a Vancouver-based mining company whose principal asset is the Wolverine Mine in Yukon.

Where there is a bankruptcy, there is no personal liability of a secured creditor to the Crown for funds received prior to the bankruptcy from a realization of assets that were subject to the deemed trust under the Excise Tax Act (Canada) (“ETA”).

Factual Background

We previously wrote about the decision in The Queen v. Callidus Capital Corporation of the Federal Court of Appeal in our Restructuring and Tax Bulletin, here. The decision, released in July 2017, was overturned on November 8, 2018 by the Supreme Court of Canada, offering sought-after certainty for secured lenders. Access the ruling here.

On November 8, 2018, in a decision delivered unanimously from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Crown’s superpriority over unremitted Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) is ineffective against a secured creditor who received, prior to a tax debtor’s bankruptcy, proceeds from that taxpayer’s assets.1

Often, when the parties to a financing are discussing priorities or intercreditor arrangements, there tends to be a simplistic view taken of these agreements. Once the competing creditors have sorted out their respective priorities over the various pools or types of collateral, they tend to think that the terms of the agreement are essentially settled and simply need to be put into writing.