This article first appeared in Law360.

Add the Eight Circuit to a growing list of courts that have found that a plan of reorganization which proposes better treatment for creditors who have agreed to purchase any leftover securities in an offering (a “backstop agreement”) done pursuant to that plan does not violate the requirement that each claim within a class of creditors receive the same treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4). In re: Peabody Energy Corp., --- F.3d --- (Docket No. 18-1302) (8th Cir. August 9, 2019).

The Peabody Plan

Earlier this year, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in BOKF NA v. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y FSB (In re MPM Silicones LLC), Case No. 15-2280, 2019 WL 121003 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2019), which had significant ramifications for senior secured creditors. Much has been written about this decision, so a lengthy discussion will not be undertaken here.

On February 2 and 9, 2012, the Ontario Superior Court released two decisions in the ongoing proceedings of Timminco Limited and Bécancour Silicon Inc. (together, the Timminco Entities) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that further develop the law regarding pension claim priorities in insolvency proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), which arose from the restructuring proceedings of Ted LeRoy Trucking Ltd. and was released on December 6, 2010, is a landmark decision in Canadian insolvency law.

This week, the Ontario Court of Appeal surprised many by deciding that in the context of the CCAA proceedings of Indalex, pension plan deficiency claims can have priority over security held by secured DIP lenders. The Court granted priority for the entire wind-up deficiency of two pension plans over the DIP lender’s security. If not reversed on appeal, the ruling creates a potential worst case scenario for secured lenders in Ontario and could affect availability of credit for all employers who provide defined benefit pension plans for their employees.

Amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have recently come into force that purportedly protect licensees of intellectual property (IP) if their licensors become insolvent or bankrupt. There are, however, a number of uncertainties surrounding the scope of protection afforded by these amendments. Until these uncertainties are resolved, licensees may wish to consider augmenting their statutory rights by contractual and other legal mechanisms. A Bankruptcy Remote Entity (BRE) is one potential mechanism.

2019 was a busy year for corporate restructuring practitioners in Canada. The year saw an uptick in CCAA filings nationwide, with 38 total proceedings (up from the total of 21 filings in 2018). The Canadian restructuring landscape also some significant shake-ups, with important decisions and extensive legislative changes. The highlights are summarized below:

BIA & CCAA Amended

At long last, amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and theCompanies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) have come into force, providing licensees of intellectual property (IP) with some additional level of protection.

Extensive amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) coming into force on November 1, 2019 through Bill C-97 will have a significant effect on certain aspects of insolvency proceedings commenced after that date. The wide-ranging revisions to both the BIA and CCAA will likely foster changes to the currently existing insolvency and restructuring practice in Canada.

Bill C-97 Overview

Bill C-97 amends both the BIA and CCAA to: