The highly publicized announcement by Nortel Networks Corporation (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, “Nortel”) of its intention to sell certain of its businesses has provided an opportunity for the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to settle the state of the law in Ontario (and, hopefully, across Canada) on the sale of all or substantially all of an entity’s assets within a Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings.

Lear Corporation, a Delaware corporation, its Canadian subsidiaries, and other affiliates, sought an Order under s. 18.6 of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) for a declaration that Chapter 11 proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (New York) constituted “foreign proceedings” and for a stay of proceedings. Introduced to the CCAA in 1997 to assist with the administration of the increasing number of cross-border insolvencies, s.18.6 is aimed at increasing cooperation, comity, and coordination between courts of different jurisdictions.

In these trying times for our economy and our financial system, every business leader should pay attention to the company’s needs for working capital for the year and prepare for any potential problem related to its lack of liquidities.

In theMatter of Forest and Marine Financial Corporation (2009) BCCA 319, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was called upon to consider whether a limited partnership qualifies for protection under the Companies Creditors’ Arrangement Act (“CCAA”). The Court also considered whether, in the circumstances of the case, a stay of proceedings should have been issued with respect to the limited partnership.

1117387 Ontario Inc., by court order in October 2003, was placed under receivership for defaulting on payment of a mortgage. In October 2008, the Court was asked to approve the receiver’s third report and the proposed sale of the mortgaged lands. A complicating factor was that the mortgaged lands were subject to environmental contamination as a result of a neighbouring oil and gas facility.

Recently, in Re Eddie Bauer of Canada Inc., Justice Morawetz ordered a debtor was entitled to pay amounts owing for goods and services actually supplied prior to the filing date.

Debtor in Possession (“DIP”) financing is essentially new bridge financing that is provided to a corporation as it undergoes insolvency proceedings. The term exists because the corporation maintains possession of its assets during this process as opposed to having a bankruptcy trustee take possession. The concept derived from the United States of America where DIP financing is expressly provided for under c.11 of the Bankruptcy Code and allows a bankrupt corporation to incur new debt for the purposes of carrying on business operations.

On May 8, 2009, the Honourable Madam Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) granted an Initial Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C36, as amended (the “CCAA”) in respect of Gandi Innovations Limited (“Gandi Canada”), Gandi Innovations Holdings LLC (“Gandi Holdings”) and Gandi Innovations LLC (“Gandi Texas”) (collectively, the “Gandi Group”).

Debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP financing”), which is new short-term financing obtained by an insolvent company after the commencement of an insolvency proceeding, is a recurring theme for two primary reasons. First, insolvent companies are generally desperate for an immediate infusion of cash to sustain operations. Second, creditors will usually provide such financing only on a super-priority basis, jumping ahead of existing secured creditors of the insolvent company.

As we warned in our earlier articles, “Wage Earner Protection Program Act Comes Into Force - Secured Creditors Be Wary” and “Extension of the WEPPA – Further Protection for Employees”, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the “WEPPA”) took eff