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

Over the last few years, debtor-in-possession (DIP) loans have become a fixture in Canadian insolvency proceedings. Initially, in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings, courts used inherent jurisdiction to authorize DIP facilities because the statute did not expressly permit them. (Pending legislative changes will put explicit DIP provisions in the CCAA and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).)

On July 21, 2009, Quebecor World Inc. and its affiliated debtors announced that they emerged from creditor protection under the CCAA and Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Quebecor announced that it had completed its Canadian and U.S. reorganization plans, closed a US $800 million exit financing facility and had drawn down approximately US $540 million with which it repaid its debtor in possession (DIP) facility.

Unpaid suppliers are generally unsecured in liquidation proceedings. A supplier can elevate its unsecured claim by taking security from the debtor or modifying its supply contract by inserting an effective title retention clause. The supplier may also rely on the BIA unpaid supplier provision to assert a super-priority for the return of its goods.

In a series of cases in 2009 culminating in the decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Morawetz in Re Indalex Limited (“Indalex”), the CCAA Courts have considered the appropriateness of approving the granting of a guarantee in connection with a cross-border DIP facility. This issue has been at the forefront – with varying results – in a number of recent CCAA cases in which DIP financing was dependent on the CCAA debtor providing a secured guarantee of the obligations of the parent or affiliate company’s DIP financing in its own Chapter 11 case.

In Re ScoZinc Ltd., 2009 NSSC 136 the monitor appointed under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) brought a motion for directions on whether it had the authority to allow the revision of a claim after the claim’s bar date, but before the date set for the monitor to complete its assessment of claims.

In Re: Nortel Networks Corp. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for court approval of the Bidding Procedures pertaining to the sale of Nortel’s “Layer 4-7” business, as well as approval of a “Stalking Horse” bidding process.

Prior to filing for protection under the CCAA, Nortel decided that the Layer 4-7 business should be sold. Shortly after filing, Nortel agreed to enter into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Radware for the purchase of the Layer 4-7 business (the “Purchase Agreement”).

Recent changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have given certain unpaid pension plan contributions priority over a lender’s security if the employer is bankrupt or in receivership. How can a lender monitor the debtor’s pension arrears to assess the extent of the lender’s loss of priority?

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act now provides that certain unpaid pension plan claims rank ahead of a lender’s security in bankruptcy or receivership proceedings. Effective July 7, 2008, sections 81.5 and 81.6 give super-priority status to:

Allarco Entertainment

On June 16, 2009, Allarco Entertainment Inc. and Allarco Entertainment 2008 Inc. filed under the CCAA in Alberta.

Allarco Entertainment owns Super Channel, an Edmonton-based TV network. According to Court documents, Super Channel has approximately 222,000 subscribers. Super Channel broadcasts feature films, original series, specials and mini-series in high definition.

Eddie Bauer

Retention of key employees is a primary concern of any company that is seeking to survive a restructuring process as a viable operating business. The question is how to ensure that employee retention payments fairly balance the goal of retaining employees who are key to the restructuring against the financial impact on other stakeholders of the implementation of such a program. Beyond that, in the case of a cross-border restructuring, one must be aware of the difference between Canadian and US law on the issue of employee retention.