In our last Financial Services Flash, we emphasized the issue that lenders need to be aware of specific restrictions that may apply to the liquidation of inventory over which they have security. This Flash considers the general notion that a lender needs to be cognizant of some unique and sometimes unexpected liabilities of the borrower which may take priority over such lender’s security. There are, of course, many ‘priority payables’ which are commonly known, whether they relate to unpaid wages, certain sales taxes, pension plan obligations, etc.

In the Ontario case of Re Xerium Technologies Inc., the Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) was asked to recognize an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Court”) approving a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) of the debtors, Xerium Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Xerium”), made under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Code”).

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?

Lenders should be aware that a broad definition of “wages” owing to employees of a borrower/customer in bankruptcy or receivership can take priority over what a lender might otherwise believe is its “first ranking charge” against the borrower.

Cow Harbour Construction Ltd1

introduction

The 2009 amendments to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”) and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) codified with some modifications judge made law giving a court authority to grant super-priority priming liens to secure interim financing (or debtorin- possession financing).

Where a tenant becomes insolvent, landlords are often faced with a courtappointed Receiver inserted in place of the insolvent debtor who wishes to operate the tenant’s business or conduct a sale of assets on site. While the landlord may be able to successfully negotiate payment of occupation rent, a common issue that arises iswho is responsible for any damages to the leased premises? A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in General Motors Corporation v.

On October 26, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) released its decision in Canadian Petcetera Limited Partnership v. 2876 R Holdings Ltd., 2010 BCCA 469 (Petcetera), an important case that addresses the rights of landlords when a tenant has filed a Notice of Intention to make a proposal (NOI) under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the BIA).

In the recent decision in Re Xerium Technologies Inc.1, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that confirmed the debtor’s pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The decision provides useful guidance on how the Ontario Court may consider similar applications in the future. Many will take comfort from the fact that the decision revisits a number of relevant factors established in case law that pre-dates the current formulation of the cross-border provisions that make up Part IV of the CCA A.

In the recent decision of Justice Cumming In the Matter of the Proposal of Hypnotic Clubs Inc. (“Hypnotic” or the “Debtor”) the court dismissed a motion by the Debtor for a sale of its assets pursuant to s.65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

Typically under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) when a debtor brings an application to extend the stay period, the court will grant the extension, so long as the applicant debtor is acting in good faith and with due diligence. In the vast majority of such extension applications the debtor has the support of the court appointed Monitor. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case Re Dura Automotive Systems (Canada) Ltd.