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.

Abitibi

Fairbanx Corp v Royal Bank of Canada, 2010 ONCA 385 (Ont CA), on appeal from 2009 CanLII 55376 (Ont SC)

Fairbanx factored accounts for the debtor, Friction Tecnology Consultants Inc. Fairbanx made its Ontario PPSA registration misspelling the name as Technology, with an “H”. Two years later, the debtor obtained a line of credit from the Bank, which correctly named the debtor in its Ontario PPSA registration.

In a sleight-of-hand move dexterously played by the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA"), it managed to secure advance collection of a disputed corporate income tax debt by obtaining an ex parte jeopardy collection order after the CRA was notified of an application by the taxpayer to appoint a receiver.

formal proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) is a powerful alternative to bankruptcy. The benefits of a proposal for the debtor are clear: the debtor reduces its debt load and avoids bankruptcy. However, proposals are also beneficial to creditors since generally the creditor’s recovery in a proposal scenario is better than the potential recovery from a liquidation through a bankruptcy. In simple terms, upon the successful completion of a proposal, the debtor gets a “fresh start” and creditors recover more than they would in a bankruptcy.

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.

Section 38 of the Ontario Personal Property Security Act (the "Act") contains an exception to the general priority scheme of the Act. It provides that a secured creditor may, in the relevant security agreement or otherwise, subordinate its security interest to any other security interest, and that such subordination will be effective according to its terms. No distinction is drawn between perfected and unperfected security interests.

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.

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: