In recent years, manufacturers and lessors of heavy industrial equipment have installed sophisticated systems into their units which require a computer code be entered in order for the equipment to operate. This computer code may need to be updated or changed periodically. If the purchaser or lessee is in arrears in making payment to the manufacturer or lessor, the manufacturer or lessor may refuse to supply the debtor with the new access code. In effect, the manufacturer or lessor has the ability to remotely render the equipment unusable.

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision that has implications for borrowers and lenders alike, particularly where pension funds are involved, has raised some new hurdles for the country’s banks and their business customers and, at the same time, has bolstered protection for lenders of last resort who finance insolvent companies.

The court’s decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, issued earlier this year, addresses critical questions in insolvency law regarding pension funds and DIP financing. 

Introduction
Summary
Facts
Supreme Court decision
Comment

Introduction

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its much-awaited decision in theIndalex case.¹ While the central issue in Indalex was the priority of wind-up deficiencies in defined benefit pension plans versus court-ordered debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing charges under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (CCAA), the SCC also considered whether claims for wind-up deficiencies are covered by deemed trusts under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA).

In 2011-0427101C6 (released this week), the CRA was asked whether a creditor’s acquisition of an interest in a debtor-partnership could qualify as a “seizure” of the debtor-partnership’s property for purposes of s. 79.1. Section 79.1 contains rules (often favorable) for a creditor where the creditor has “seized” property of a debtor as a result of a foreclosure, conditional sale repossession, or similar transaction.

Introduction
Implications
Facts
Supreme Court decision
Comment

Introduction

The Court of Appeal for Ontario's (the "OCA") decision in Re Indalex Ltd.¹ was decried by professionals in pension, banking and insolvency practices. On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the "SCC" or the "Court") overturned the OCA's decision.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has issued its much-anticipated decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in (Re) Indalex has changed the landscape for both lenders and borrowers in Canada who sponsor registered defined benefit pension plans. For lenders, carefully drafted loan documentation and effective planning can enhance the protection of a secured lender’s position in the face of the broadened scope of a deemed trust applicable to a borrower’s defined benefit pension obligations.