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.

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

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.